User:Hkeenan01/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: (link)
 * Adorant from the Geißenklösterle cave
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I am interested in the arts, especially European art.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead it clearly describes the artwork but it does not clearly describe what the article is about. The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections. Again, it gives a well written description of the artwork but not the actual article itself. It is a good summary of the artwork and the author is extremely detailed in the description of the artwork.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant, and the author does not derail from the Lead. Whether the content is up-to-date is subjective and depends on the definition of "up-to-date". The article was edited within the last six months so one could infer the information is current. The article provides adequate details about the piece; however, it does lack who found it, who created the piece, how it was found (i.e. was it embedded in the cave, was it on an altar or table in the cave), and why the piece was created. Was the piece used in religious ceremonies or for another specific purpose? Additionally, it does not offer a suggestion for the significance of the rows of notches on the back of the piece.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article's tone is very neutral, and there is no obvious bias. The viewpoints are neither overrepresented nor underrepresented. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in anyway.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I would infer that the sources are reliable because the list of sources are literature. A quick google search of the available produces a limited amount of literature. The four sources the author uses is thorough. In scientific research references must be dated in five years; based on that, no the references are not current. However, in historical research it could be different. The one link provided in the article does work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article was well-written, and it was an easy read. The first sentence is a run-on sentence. There are only two paragraphs in this article, and it is not broken down into section because of this.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There is only one image in the article, and it was well-captioned giving a brief detail of the image. It does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The one image is positioned in the top right hand corner, and it is the first thing that draws the eye.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The article is a part of WikiProjects, and on the talk page there were already comments on the talk page. The author did not seem open to criticism though. It is different from what we have talked about in class because we have learned to be open to other ideas while doing research, and double check your research.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The overall status of the article was interesting but as a reader, I was left wanting more information about the Adorant. As previously mentioned, the article could improve by adding pictures, and more information was needed. The article was underdeveloped because again it could use more information and pictures.

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:Talk:Adorant from the Geißenklösterle cave