User:Clervalstein/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cornelia (mother of the Gracchi)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I decided to choose Cornelia as my evaluation article, as she is known as a very prominent figure in Roman history, and also links specifically to the class topic as she herself is a woman. I also have a small amount of background knowledge of her already from a past class, which can help with the evaluation.

Evaluate the article
LEAD SECTION:

The lead section of this article is short and fairly concise. The very first sentence does include some extra clarifying information about who Cornelia's husband was, though I don't particularly find it necessary to be added in this spot since the page is about her, not him. The articles major sections are addressed, albeit a little vaguely as the section about her letter is only mentioned through "her interest in...writing".

CONTENT:

All content in this article is fully relevant to Cornelia. While the sources are not incredibly modern, the article is still frequently edited at least once a month, which keeps any potential inaccuracies from being too large.

TONE:

The article does do a good job of staying fairly neutral, though there are some moments that it could do with being a bit more so (ex. the description of her rejecting the King in the Biography section, the Changing legacy over time section). In the Changing legacy over time section in particular, the tone almost struggles to seem completely neutral- sentences such as "This is problematic because Roman depictions of Cornelia clearly change over time" stand out, as it seems to patronize the reader. Otherwise, there is sufficient balance. The article makes sure to point out when something is just speculation/hypothesis, and keeps facts written basically as they are given.

SOURCES:

This article is fairly well sourced, coming from an array of different sources. As for current, the latest source listed seems to be from 2013- but for an article like this it is not too incredibly often that new information would be getting added. It seems that a majority of the sources also come from good areas, likely some of the best for what was needed here. All older links still work from what I've seen, which is great.

ORGANIZATION:

The writing in this article is easy to read and concise, and it generally tends to not restate any information that has already been said (unless it is elaborating). I do think that in terms of grammar, some sentences could be formatted a bit differently, but it is not noticeable enough to make changes. It is overall well-organized, and the subcategories chosen to represent her fit very well in my opinion.

MEDIA:

The images used in the article are sort of repetitive, but this is understandable for a topic that does not have a huge amount of official art pieces. All the pieces used are properly captioned with the art piece's title and artist. Overall they are organized in an appealing way, but I personally believe that the Lead Section image for her should be the painting by Angelica Kauffman we see at the bottom of the page rather than the painting of her currently there, which depicts an action not mentioned at all in the lead section, rather only appears in her Biography section. The painting by Kauffman has no conflict, and simply shows Cornelia in the center showing her children.

TALK PAGE DISCUSSION:

Not much conversation is happening behind the scenes of this article. While it is of interest to four different Wikiprojects, it is rated B-class in each. It is also generally considered to be of mid/low-importance.

OVERALL IMPRESSION:

I personally believe this article is as complete as it can be for now, at least until new information about Cornelia is discovered. I think the biggest improvements needed for this article is within how it discusses controversial opinions; especially in the subcategory about Cornelia's legacy, the section is able to play to both sides while staying somewhat neutral, but frequently refers to certain opinions as "problematic". The biggest strength seems to be the clearness, this article is easy to read and understand, even for someone who may not have much background.