User:Ebullience10/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: Amores (Ovid)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because I was interested in working on the page as part of our project. I figured that evaluating this page would help me better understand where it is starting and how I might be able to better add to it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic, as "Ovid's first completed book of poetry.."
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does not include a brief descriptions of the article's major sections. I can see how some of the material does link to the major sections, but there are other lines that also seem to wander.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The subjects of the sentences are all connected to the article. There are some phrases may need to be better supported or explained to relate them back to the information in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is pretty concise. In comparison to more popular wiki page entries, I think that there is definitely room to add more.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * I think the content is relevant to the topic, there is just not much of it, so the speak. All the headings see promising, and like interesting points to develop upon further.


 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * I would say so. Nothing reads as particularly dated. I guess, when I dig into my own research, I will have better understanding about some of this.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There are a lot of sections that are only described with a line or two, so I would say that there is some content missing in the regard that there is so little of it in some areas. The worst of these is probably the style and themes section of the piece. I didn't pick up anything that doesn't belong at this point, but perhaps when I read more about the subject I will better notice this, if there are any items that do not belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I don't think this article really deals with Wikipedia's equity gaps, since it is about a book of poems written by a privileged Roman man. I mean, the poems do talk about women, which fall into that category, but I don't know that the topic more broadly, or all the content would classify as filling an equity gap.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, most of it is written with a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not really. There is not a lot of information at this point, so I would say that the claims that are made are pretty well balanced.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not really. If you wanted to expand on some, I am sure that the themes sections could use something about the role of women in the poems. I guess I feel like I need to start doing more research to really figure it out.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. When there are opinions about how the book was received in the post-classical period, these opinions are cited.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Some parts are, and some parts could really use some more work in citations - even just linking them to begin with.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources reflect a small area of literature on the subject. I would expect to find a broader range of sources both in history and literature.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The most current source is 2016 and the oldest listed source is from 1955. This is a pretty decent range span of sources. I would say it could use some more modern sources, but we shall see what is available when researching the subject.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Sources could use more diversification, I would say.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes. Most of them link you to the google book version of the text being cited. There was one link that came up as an error.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * There are some run on sentences in some places. Could perhaps use some more fluid transitions in some areas. Most of it is pretty clear and easy to comprehend though.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I picked up on in the could times that I have read through it.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Generally yes. There are some sections that I would suggest breaking into two different sections, like style and theme. Style talks more about the structure of the poems and the literary devices used in them, while theme is derived more from the content and actions detailed in the poems.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Nope. There are no images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The conversations are all about people working on the page. For instance, one person announced that they adopted it. Other people have posted looking for recommendations on good secondary sources. Others have talked about potential allusions in the poetry.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated a stub-class. It is part of four different WikiProjects - Classical Greece and Rome, Latin, Poetry, and Books.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have talked about in the context of love poetry, and used it to understand Roman love and family life. Wiki on the other hand, covers a much broader range, and perhaps focuses more on the literary elements of the book.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It's a good start, it just needs some more development and attention.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It has pretty good, concise descriptions of the poems in the book, which would be really helpful for people when it comes to understanding what a poem is talking about. There is also a decent amount of groundwork that has been laid as far the starts of ideas and relevant topics of exploration.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * There are some lines that could use some editing. The bulk of it at this point I think would just be adding more content - ex: explaining some topics more in depth, or finding relevant images, etc.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?\
 * Right now it is pretty under-developed. I don't want to say poorly, because I've seen worse, and there has certainly been some thought and effort put into this page. We just have to keep building off of the decent foundation that we have.

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: