User:Hannahhelm/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: Punic Wars
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have decided to evaluate this article because the Punic Wars are very important to Roman History. Additionally, we are learning about the wars this week and I wanted use the information I learned to evaluate this article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. The introduction sentence clearly explains what the article will be about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does provide information about each of the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead discusses the Macedonian Wars which are not covered in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes. The Lead presents an accurate description of what will be in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. I think the article does a great job at providing the historical context in which the events in this article took place.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes. The information is all correct.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think the article could have spent more time on perhaps how Rome created such a massive Navy in such a short amount of time. I also think that the pictures included in the article could have more detail as to why they are within the article.  For example, the Carthaginian shekel.  There is also no discussion of the Ebro Treaty, which is discussed in the class textbook which I think would add to the section on the Second Punic Wars.  As discussed in class, the wind during the second Punic War was very important.  This was not mentioned, nor was the adaption of the Roman's naval ships that allowed them to lower the plank and fight as if they were on land.  The article also could have added more detail on the consuls and make up of the Roman Government as that played a large part in the wars.  However, there are more specified pages for the distinct battles, so perhaps this page is meant to be more of an overview.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes. This article states facts without a bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. The article illustrates the facts well without presenting any bias towards one side.  However, the available research and literature seems to come from the Roman perspective.  This is not an author bias, perhaps just a bias present in available history.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The Roman perspective/ series of events is discussed more than the Carthaginians. However, I believe that is because the accounts that we have are written from the Roman perspective.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. This article is a statement of fact.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I must say I feel as though this article is not well cited. There are many statements of facts without a reference attached to them.  There are ten references included, however, the references are barely used in the content articles for referencing.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources seem to be a well-rounded collection of evidence of the punic wars. The further reading section seems to have books that would be relevant to this topic.  The author should include those references within the article to further the research.  Since the wars are such prominent battles in Roman history, I think that the author should use more sources to increase the amount of detail in the article.  For example, the sections in our textbook explain the battles in more detail.
 * Are the sources current? There are a few sources from the 2000s and some are from the 80s and 90s. Other sources do not indicate a year.  I do think that the sources are a good mixture of old and current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There is one link that works. The IBSN numbers do not lead to the cited books.  One of the references states that the "verification failed".

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think this article is clear and concise and provides the needed information for the understanding of the Punic Wars. This article would be accessible to many ages and skill levels.  The article is consistent in the tense it is written in.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? The article does not have any syntax errors that I can see.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is very well organize. The sub-sections follow in chronological order which makes the series of events easy to follow and understand.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. In the Lead there is a virtual map that illustrates who has control of what land during the wars.  The image of Hannibal on his elephant going over the Alps adds to that section of the article as it gives the reader of visual as to what was going on.
 * Are images well-captioned? Except for the Carthaginian coin I think the captions are useful to aid the reader in understanding why the images are included. In the second picture showing Hannibal crossing the alps it says "Hannibal's feat crossing", I wonder if it should say fleet?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes. All of the images are either CC BY-SA or Public Domain.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. Images are only used in areas where they enhance the reader's understanding.

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 talk page for this article includes one interesting talk page fight, one person contributed the virtual map that is now in the Lead section, one person indicates that there has been vandalism and there is a response stating it has been dealt with, one person correcting the name of Spain during the time of the Punic Wars, and one person asking a historical question.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is B class. It is also a part of six WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In class, Dr. Gardner also expresses the importance of the visual aspect of these wars by including a lot of maps in our discussion. The contribution of the virtual map in the Lead section is very useful to increase the reader's understanding of these wars.  In class we discussed the behind the scenes of the battles in far more detail, such as the Consuls and their impact on Rome.  However, like I said above, since there are specific pages for each individual battle, this page seems to be more of an over view.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? B class
 * What are the article's strengths? The article's strengths are its organization, descriptive and well written Lead, progression of events in chronological order and its overall information about the Punic Wars. The article presents a good over view without diving into too much detail.
 * How can the article be improved? I think that more detail can be added into the article to explain the birth of the Roman Navy. This will be vital to their continued expansion and is really only talked about in one sentence saying it produced a large fleet.  The article could be better improved by providing sections on more than just the battles, such as Roman society at the point in time or a section on Roman government.  The wars are a product of the society and culture, therefore it is important to note.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is well-developed. Each section on the different wars provides good detail on what took place.  I think that the article lacks completeness in the reference category.  Many facts are not cited which takes away credibility from the article.

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: