User:Chandlerhall2/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: Bernart de Ventadorn
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This article was assigned by my professor.

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: '''Although the Lead seems to be a well-written, broad overview of Ventadorn's impact, much of the content does not reappear in the body of the article. In particular, the Lead of this article includes information about the aesthetic style, genres, and subjects of Ventadorn's poetry, none of which are mentioned in greater detail in the body of the article. The final paragraph (about Ventadorn's portrayal of women) seems particularly misplaced.''' ====

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

==== Content evaluation: The content of the article is not up-to-date, but the sources are relevant and largely reputable. There is a lot that is "missing"--discussion of Ventadorn's poetry, music, the historical sources in which his music and poetry can be found, the subjects of his poetry, and how he fits into broader troubadour history. The body of the article is almost solely biographical. ====

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: The tone is fairly neutral. However, some sentences imply authority without offering evidence. For instance: "Bernart was known for being able to portray his woman as a divine agent in one moment and then, in a sudden twist, as Eve – the cause of man's initial sin." '''In what works does he do this? Was he really "known" for this if only one scholar says he was? Was he known for this during his life, or is this something that he is now known for?''' ====

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

==== Sources and references evaluation: The sources come from many reputable scholars. The sources are not entirely current. Because there are gaps in the content of the article (where is the discussion of Ventadorn's poetry and music?), surely there are also missing sources. Some Wikipedia articles include discographies as well, and this one does not. It is also important to note that although there is a relatively robust list of sources, these sources are not tied to citations within the article. It is impossible to know which source is used at which point in the article, making it more difficult to assess accuracy and reliability. ====

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 article is well-written and easy to follow. However, it is solely comprised of a biography. Conceivably, there could be many more subsections within the article, such as "Music" and "Legacy," two popular subheadings in articles about composers and artistic figures. The final sentences about Ventadorn in modern culture could be placed under a "Legacy" heading as they have little to do with his biography. ====

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?

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: The "Talk Page" includes no scholarly debate or conversations about the content of the article. One user asked about the source of the image; another complained about Ventadorn's writing. The article does not seem to have a rating and is part of several WikiProjects. Users should use the talk page to discuss edits, and that is not happening in this article. ====

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: The article contains a fairly robust biography based on scholarship of medieval sources. The Lead is fairly good and reflects the content that would be found in a more robust and complete article. The article does not discuss the weaknesses of medieval biographical sources, perhaps giving the reader a false sense that all of the content is verifiable and true. Moreover, various claims are not specifically cited in the article. The article is under-developed. The biography could be improved, and several other aspects worthy of inclusion are missing entirely. ====

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: