User:ES875/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ur

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

The article about Ur is of significance because Ur is one of the oldest cities in history. I chose it I find the history of cities particularly interesting to learn about, in an attempt to imagine what it might have been like to live there when they were at the height of power. My preliminary impression was that the article gave a good overview of the history and archeological excavations, but not so much about the architecture and society of the city.

Evaluate the article

 * Lead Section
 * The lead sentence gives a good overview of the article's topic, and clearly explains what Ur is.
 * The brief description of the articles' major sections is present.
 * The lead does include some information that is not expanded on later in the article. The portion about the city's patron deity in particular isn't mentioned later at all.
 * The lead seems a bit overly detailed, some of the information could likely be moved into other sections.
 * Content
 * All the content is relevant to the article's topic.
 * The article does appear up to date with the current status of excavations in Ur, the most recent edit was yesterday.
 * There should be more content about the city's architecture and about the society and culture.
 * Tone
 * The article does appear to be balanced
 * Sources
 * There do not appear to be any sections in need of citations
 * The vast majority of the sources have been written in the last 20 years.
 * The sources seem to be of mixed quality - some of the links do not work, and several of them are not from reliable academic sources
 * Better sources are most definitely available, and this could be improved
 * Organization
 * The flow of the article generally makes sense, but some of the transitions do not flow well.
 * Some parts of the article, particularly in the history section are a bit dense and confusing.
 * The sections are relatively well outlined, but there is some overlap between the sections.
 * Images
 * The images used in this article are quite good, but they could be better referenced by the article and tied to each section.
 * More images could be added to enhance understanding of the topic, particularly maps
 * One section references an aerial map that was constructed, but not only is an image not included, but no link is provided either.
 * Talk page - reference has been made to improving the archeology section and the music section
 * I agree with that that they should be improved
 * It is C rated, which makes sense as the article is nowhere near perfect
 * Overall
 * Article explains the history of Ur and archeological excavations, somewhat well
 * However, both those sections could be improved to make them more readable.
 * Also the smaller sections, such as the music section and the Tal Abu Tbeirah section should be expanded
 * The article is, in my opinion about halfway complete, it has the basic structure and some information, but it needs more to become complete.