User:Funnysagittarius/Evaluate an Article

Evaluation of Capaneus Article

I found the first two sentences of the article to be rather confusing and not particularly interesting or effective as an opening sentiment about Capaneus. The first sentence of the lead in reads, “Capaneus was the son of Hipponous and either Astynome (daughter of Talaus) or Laodice (daughter of Iphis), and husband to Evadne, with whom he fathered Sthenelus. Some call his wife Ianeira.” I read this sentence several times and still didn’t move on with the feeling I had learned anything important. This sentence should be engaging and pull the reader in, not mundane - a series of name drops, which many people might be confused by. I recognize the importance of family lineage in Ancient Greece, especially in myth, but I do not see this series of names strung together as a colorful and captivating lead in for the average reader. This information would work better in the body of the entry, at a point where his family is mentioned. The opening should be more about why this person is significant to a reader now - what was he involved in, when did he live? This lead in does not include the incident for which Capaneus is most widely known. The information presented in the lead in does not appear elsewhere in the article which gives the article a rather disjointed feel.

One of two sections, entitled Mythology, encompasses the only real meat of the article. It is at this point that the reader learns why she should actually care about Capaneus and his place in literature and lore. Here, with not much detail, the article describes the reason for Capaneaus' notoriety. The reader learns he was physically large and notably arrogant, that he provoked Zeus with his threat to invade Thebes, unstopped by any divine intervention, and was subsequently struck down and killed by Zeus' thunderbolt. Again, in this section, names are dropped without much explanation and potentially unnecessary (unless properly referenced and explained) information is inserted - "Vegetius refers to him as the first to use ladders in a siege." And why is his use of a ladder significant? I don't doubt that it is, but it would be nice to have context for such a statement. The information is made more muddled by vague pronoun references and unclear language - "In Aeschylus, he bears a shield with a man without armour withstanding fire, a torch in hand, which reads 'I will burn the city,' in token of this." I really was not quite sure what to make of this sentence, as the grammar is strange. In contrast to this wikipedia article, the the entry on Capaneus in the Dante Encyclopedia, which opens with and continues to provide evidence for a very clear understanding of Capaneus' importance, is rich and concise. Immediately the reader knows he was a king; one who attacked Thebes; and brother to Eteocles - a significant detail because their "dispute over the sovereignty of the city led to war." All pertinent and intentional information, unlike the bit about Capaneus' being the first to use a ladder during a siege. Both entries, that on wikipedia and that in the Dante Encyclopedia, mention Capaneus' physical size and arrogance, but the former does not distinguish between the different tones used to describe Capaneus across literature; while the reader learns from the wikipedia article only that Statius, Dante and Aeschylus all wrote of Capaneus, she learns from the Dante Encyclopedia that those authors presented him with varied interpretations - Statius paints Capaneus in a flattering light and Dante does the opposite, though they do both agree that he is physically strong. The wikipedia article does a fine job of explaining Capaneus' appearance in Inferno, correctly noting his placement in the seventh circle of hell for his '[violence] against god.' This said, in reading side by side the article and a translation of the Enciclopedia Dantesca I noticed some similarities in the wording of Capaneus' punishment: the article says, "Along with the other blasphemers, or those "violent against God", Capaneus is condemned to lie supine on a plain of burning sand while fire rains down on him," while the entry in Enciclopedia Dantesca, translated from Italian to English by Google (and therefore taken with a grain of salt), reads, "D. places him in the burning sand of the violent against God, supine under the rain of fire like his fellow prisoners." Perhaps there are only so many ways to write this sentiment, but I thought the similarities in the words were interesting. Overall, this section on Capaneus in Inferno seemed to me satisfactory, as it gave a basic idea of his role and reason for being placed where he was. Certainly, the description could be made more detailed and subsequently more interesting by noting the significance of Dante the author's decision to write Capaneus into this particular part of Inferno and by including some mention of Dante's reason for portraying Capaneus as he does - not as one who does not believe in God but rather one who does not believe in his power.

The article's tone was neutral, and nothing in particular seemed to have been represented to an extreme or with bias. The writing was to me very factual and void of interpretation, perhaps almost to a fault. I am not entirely sure where the line between enough and too much interpretation lies, but I do think a slightly deeper analysis of the texts in which Capaneus appears would have enriched the article a bit.

Most of the references seem to be primary sources and valid, though the section entitled Popular Culture is entirely without footnotes even though Dante's Inferno is quoted. I would imagine this to be problematic.

Overall, the article is fine, but with some rearranging and grammatical edits (comma placement/elimination of vague pronoun references) it could be much more engaging. I think the writing may actually be too concise in a way, and I don't really think its flow leads the reader to clearly delineated points. The two sections are mythology and popular culture, but I wouldn't really consider Dante's Inferno popular culture as much as I would consider it literature. I get that it was probably pop culture 700 and 600 years ago, but now I think it would be considered literature or poetry. The main points of the article were not entirely clear to me - maybe they were: 1. his family members 2. the story of his death/why he is significant 3. where he shows up elsewhere. If there were a section on literature, I think comparisons between his appearances in Statius, Aeschylus and Dante could be made smoothly.

The image included in the article is cool and certainly applicable to the entry's content, though the caption is a bit comma filled.

The Talk page is rather barren; someone mentions a virtual video game player also named Capaneus and someone else asks why "there was no mention of Dante's reference to Capaneus in Canto 25." The article is not rated particularly highly.

Overall, readingthe article would have taught me something I did not already know, and that is a good thing. That said, there are stylistic and content changes which, if made, would very much enrich one's introduction to Capaneus. I've mentioned several of them above.

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

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.)

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)