User:Guiness20/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Lion of Venice

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.)

My partner and I chose this article because we thought this statue looked really interesting. The picture at the top of the pre-existing Wikipedia page is a different piece of art than I've studied before so I thought it would be fun to learn more. We also received an email from our professor about how this piece is from BCE (before the common era) which is different from the time period we're studying in class so it will be brand new to us.

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.)

All of the content of this article that already exists looks like it's relevant content. I would argue that the 'Iconography and Popular Culture' section could stay included or be removed because it's not as important but adds an interesting new aspect of this piece. It was a little distracting but is at the end and in its own section so I think it can be argued either way. Information relating to this statue and medieval times is only a tiny section which looks like it could be expanded on. The 'Description' and 'Scientific Analysis' sections are basically just titles so those could be reorganized and either removed or combined with other parts. I can't really identify any notable equity gaps because the page doesn't talk too much about different populations besides the different places the piece was moved or taken and how the French, Italians, etc. were involved with this statue. St. Mark was mentioned early in the description who could be expanded on because this statue was supposed to symbolize him. This article seems pretty neutral in tone and includes lots of information about its origins and contributions from Venice, Assyria, Greco-Bactria, etc. Only a couple of the links within the citations actually take you to the right place. Some of the other ones that can be clicked on just take you to the Wikipedia page relating to that word or phrase within the citation. These sources, at least a couple of them, I would not consider to be credible and scholarly so I would probably remove them and the information relating to them unless I found that same information in a reputable source(s). There is a diverse array of authors and sources but I feel like stronger source options should be used instead of a few of them. The Talk page doesn't have a whole lot of information besides mentioning that this article has been used/currently is being used for a Wikipedia Education assignment.