User:Cawley L/Evaluate an Article

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


 * Name of article: Acropolis of Athens
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: As I was looking through the different C-Rated articles I was surprised that the Acropolis of Athens was one of them. This location is very significant in the history of architecture so in reviewing the article I hope to contribute to the improvement of this page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead contains some information from a few of the sections but it seems like sections were added since it was last updated. The geology, cultural significance, and current condition are not outlined in the Lead making it not a great outline for the current article. It seems grammatically correct and concise with the information presented but is missing some core information in this overview.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Under the history section there is a lot of wonderful content that does not appear out of date or bias. The article focuses a lot on the history but not on the current state of the Acropolis of Athens or how influential this location was for future architecture (cultural influence). The current content seems to be reliable, but the article is just missing some content and has a few little contradictions according to the talk community.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
In general, the article is neutral and expresses the overall knowledge of the Acropolis of Athens. The cultural significance section could use some more information on the restoration project as not to be misread as taking a side. Otherwise there is not any certain side or position that is trying to persuade the reader.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The authors of the different sections have used many sources to back their information within the different sections. There are also many different external links that work alongside the cited sources. I checked on a few of the links and they redirected me to the source of the information given. It seems like some of the sources needed to be recited due to some faulty links but they are currently fixed. The sources range from being published in 1990 to 2011, so I would consider the information relatively current but there probably is some more current information that can be added into the article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The sections of the article are very concise and easy to follow throughout the entire article. There were no huge gramatical errors in the writing, but there were a few places that could possibly need commas. The history section is packed with clear information so it takes a bit more time to digest then the other sections. I would not say that the article is difficult to read due to organization and poor word choice.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
The images do a great job in enhancing the location understanding. I especially appreciate the land plan photo and key for the Acropolis of Athens. All the images have a key or description associated with them making them easier to understand. All of the images seem to be following the copyright regulations and they are all cited within the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
This article is C-rated and needs improvement. It is assigned to a few WikiProjects: Archeology, Architecture, and Classical Greece/Rome. There are many different projects going on behind the scenes along with people expressing the importance that this article needs to be improved upon. There are many different improvements that have happened, links have been fixed, sources recited, and vandalism fixed. Some projects are still ongoing like the contradictions in a few of the history paragraphs and continuing link fixes.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall this article is in need of some help. It has a few strengths when it comes to the historical content and images but it is missing quite a bit of information about this important place. It is nice that people recognize and are willing to help in the improvement of this article as seen in the Talk page but the last post was from 2017. This article is underdeveloped compared to the popularity and influence of the Acropolis of Athens. There is more current information with the restoration and cultural influence of this place that is not expressed in the current version of this article. Making sure that the article maintains some form of continuity would be another improvement that should be made.

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: