User:BriannaSierra/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise and very detailed.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, Catholicism is a pretty dominant religion and isn't underrepresented.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I don't think it's written by a diverse spectrum of authors since they are all catholic and it doesn't include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) I clicked on all the links they come from the catholic enclycopedia or they go to the way back machine since they are from awhile ago.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they all work.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article was clear and concise, but I thought it was only hard to read because there were many references to places and people, but those references were all linked.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article was broken down into different sections. I liked how they made it an obvious point to make the two different tales about St. Juliana in two separate areas, so readers know that they're not the same story on purpose.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The only conversation on the talk page was a change made in the external links.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)  WikiProject Saints (Rated C-class, Low-importance)   WikiProject Women's History (Rated C-class, Low-importance)   WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated C-class, Low-importance)     WikiProject Christianity (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We haven't discussed this in class

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Well- developed


 * What are the article's strengths? The strengths were covering all bases about acknowledging that there are two histories recorded for this saint. Another strength was keeping the tone neutral when speaking about the pagan religion and the hardships this saint went through.


 * How can the article be improved? The only thing I would want to see improvement on is more details about this saint's story. I would also like to know why she was deemed the saint of sickness when her story had nothing to do with illness.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is very developed, fixing the articles weakness' may be hard to fix since this saint lived in 304, so written records may be limited and hard to find. The information that was available to the author was displayed in a well-developed way that made it easy to comprehend information.

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_of_Nicomedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article by looking at events on my birthday (February 16th). I am also catholic and really like learning about stories of specific saints. So when I saw Saint Juliana’s feast day was on my birthday, I choose this article to read. It was an interesting story about a brave women that fought her religion and this article clearly shows that.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)