User:Camsara99/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article - Minerva
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Minerva
 * This is the article that I have chosen to work on for class so I figured it would be the most effective for me to evaluate it now as opposed to evaluating a random article.

Lead

 * The introductory sentance is an excellent quick description of who Minerva is, I feel like it is excellent for anyone who is doing a quick google search to figure out breifly who/what Minerva is.
 * Some of the information gets a little bit off track into more depth of other characters in her story than actually focusing on Minerva. This information can be distracting, and would be fine later in the article, but I believe that the lead should focus solely on Minerva.
 * There isn't really an introduction to the other section in the lead, though I think it is a little bit distracting for this subject, it certainly could be included in a short paragraph to prepare readers at the end of the lead.
 * The lead gives a concise (and slightly confusing) version of Minerva's story, but doesn't deliver the full expanded version of her myth in the article, which it definitely should.
 * The lead gets confusing due to the way her myth is told, for reasons I previously stated.

Content

 * There should be content on her role in myth.
 * The content is hard to confirm as up-to-date as it is a mythological and ancient subject.
 * Minerva is a popular character adapted in pop-culture, and I think it would be cool to add a section on her appearances in pop-culture.
 * The section on Menvra switches to using the name Minerva, which can easily lead to confusion between two. This paragraph should stick to using Menvra as the name.
 * The coinage section could use much more specific information
 * Ancient statues and temples for Minerva could be explained better. and have more specific examples, including a brief history behind them.

Tone and Balance

 * The article is neutral
 * No claims appear heavily biased toward a particular position, but there isn't many great sources to confirm this.
 * There is a focus on the etruscan point of view when there could be equal information from multiple backgrounds.
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of any position.
 * There needs to be a lot more sound sources to be able to confirm that the article is true and unbiased.

Sources and References

 * Some of the sources for the landmarks are irrelevant and biased news articles and should be removed.
 * The sources come from (mostly archived and inactive) webpages as opposed to reliable sources.
 * Sources are mostly outdated
 * Many of the links do not work
 * One of the links is to a wikipedia page for the book as opposed to an actual copy or source for the book that readers can access.

Organization

 * The article was certainly concise, but to a fault. There is less information on this page than should be included.
 * The order of the sections don't always make sense, and there are certainly more ways to organize and section this page.
 * The article has confusing and poorly done grammar in some places, and is heavily in need of a basic edit.
 * There were some words that the general public wouldn't understand being used such as "syncretized". I don't think wikipedia is really the place for 10-point vocabulary words, as that keeps wikipedia from being fully accesible to everyone.

Images and Media

 * There are lots of nice images in the article
 * The images are well-captioned
 * The images seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations
 * The images could be laid out better, but aren't horrible as they are.

Checking the talk page

 * The talk page seems to agree with my opinion that this page needs heavy editing.
 * The article is rated "start-class" and is a part of many priority Wiki-projects
 * The talk page suggests including worship of Minerva outside of Rome/Italy and I think this is a great idea.
 * The talk page points out many of the same issues I have with the article.
 * Some of the talk page is biased towards those who have pre-existing knowledge, which can come off as a bit hostile and not helpful. This attitude can be removed from the article by having proper sources to prove each piece of information, proving it beyond doubt and not relying on trusting prior knowledge of the writer.

Overall impressions

 * The page needs work
 * The strength is that it does deliver (in its opening line) an accurate description of who Minerva is.
 * The article loses track after the opening line, and really needs heavy editing.
 * The article is under-developed and poorly-developed

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Minerva