User:GraceRequejo/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Pythagorean cup)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because I find it to be an interesting object with a pretty deep rooted history. It is also a fascinating exploration of design, as this object does the opposite of its intended function. The function of the object, which is a cup usually intended for drinking, instead functions as an object of entertainment through deceit/trickery. The pythagorean cup also holds a metaphorical life lesson, which is to not take more than you need.

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.)

LEAD SECTION:

I think this article's lead section is pretty good. The first sentence (A Pythagorean cup is a practical joke device in a form of a drinking cup, credited to Pythagoras of Samos) describes clearly what it is and who created it. It briefly describes what the item is and the mechanics of it (which is further expanded on in another section). The only thing is the lead section mentions that the cup can be used to learn about greed. Unfortunately this sentence is not expanded on any further in the article. The lead section mentions/references the history of the cup (mentioning who is credited with creating it), but the article doesn't really delve into that specific history.

CONTENT:

The overall content of the article is relative to the topic, but I feel that it is missing information and could use some updating. There is only one major section which is Form and Function, and, while this section is nicely explained, it cannot by itself fully explain this object. I feel that there should at least be a section on History, Modern Use, and maybe Construction. There should also be a section on the metaphorical function of the object, as I'm sure it has some relation to Greek mythology and fable.

TONE AND BALANCE:

I would say this article is fairly neutral. I don't really see this object as being that controversial anyway, but the article still does a good job of clearly describing how the object functions without any bias. One part of the article says that the cup operates in the same way that a toilet does, which could be true but seems like more of an opinion just because there is no citation to back up that claim.

SOURCES

The sources for this article are actually very weak. The first source is what looks to be a blog from a university professor. It is not affiliated with any university and does not appear to be peer reviewed. The second source is from a .org site called EP Magazine. While this source has reference to ancient text, the site appears to be outdated and overall unreliable. Overall the sources on this article are not reliable, current, diverse, or thorough. It would probably be easier if the article directly referenced 'Dialogues of the Dead by Lucian,' or better yet, a secondary source on the history of Pythagoras of Samos. After some digging, it was pretty hard to find anything truly reliable on the Pythagorean cup, so I can understand why the sources on this article are pretty weak. I saw that it has been mentioned in books from university professors (I wasn't able to get access to these online), so I think there would need to be some outside/tangible research to make this article more thorough.

ORGANIZATION

This article was pretty concise and there were no major errors that I saw. It appears to be organized so far, but there isn't much content so it would be pretty hard to mess up the organization of this article.

IMAGES

I think one of the strongest aspects of this article are the images. I found the images to be very helpful in understanding the mechanisms of the object, since they use very clear diagrams. There is also a good variety of images, from diagrams to a photo of the actual object. The images are well captioned and arranged in a clear, appealing way.

TALK PAGE

The talk page was super interesting! First of all this article is a part of the WikiProject Food and Drink, Wikiproject Greece, WikiProject classical Greece and Rome, and WikiProject Wine, yet is ranked low importance on all of them. Also someone pointed out an inaccuracy that has yet to be resolved. Apparently credited the Pythagorean cup to Pythagoras is unfounded, since there is no "archaeological or textual dating." It's really hard to find historical references to this cup so I'm starting to thing the period that this object was invented might be a bit off.

OVERALL IMPRESSION

Overall I think this article could use some work. It definitely needs better, more reliable sourced. The bare bones of the article are there, but there needs to be some added information. There needs to be a more in depth section on the history of the cup, since this article is mostly just concerned with the mechanics of it. I think with a little more outside research this article could be more complete.