User:Hpachel/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: De re aedificatoria
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article to evaluate because it relates to the reading about Alberti and the lecture about Florence. I found this topic interesting and this article was relevant to the course material for this week.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The introductory sentence of the Lead clearly describes the topic of the article including what De re aedificatoria is, when it was written, and that Alberti is the author. The Lead doesn't include a brief description of the major sections of the article, it just gives some more details explaining the topic. The Lead includes some information about De architectura by Vitruvius and the Italian Renaissance, but there isn't much information about these topics included in the rest of the article. The Lead in concise, but it doesn't outline the major sections of the article and it includes information that isn't explained further in the article.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

There is only one major section included in the article, and a broad heading is used that makes it unclear what the section will discuss. The article's content is relevant to the topic, but it seems underdeveloped and disorganized. It seems like a lot more content could be added to improve the article, and more headings should be added to help keep the article organized and to help separate the main ideas. It looks like the content was last updated in March, so the content may not be up-to-date.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article seems neutral, but there are a few claims that aren't supported with much evidence. One claim is that De re aedificatoria is dependent on the ideas and writing of Vitruvius, but there are no examples that support this claim. There don't seem to be any claims that are heavily biased toward a particular position. The balance of the article seems a little off because major concepts, like the Italian Renaissance are underrepresented, and Alberti's discussion of geometrical shapes is overrepresented in relation to the rest of the article. The article doesn't seem to attempt to persuade the reader.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The external links work and the one link in the references section also works. The rest of the sources are books that appear to be relevant, reliable, and fairly current sources. The actual book, De re aedificatoria, is also referenced. None of the facts throughout the article are directly cited and there are no footnotes throughout the article. Even though the sources appear to be reliable, the reader won't know which sources the facts are supported by because there are no footnotes included.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article seems to be well-written, and it doesn't have any noticeable grammatical or spelling errors. It is written in a clear, concise way, but the structure of the article is underdeveloped. There is only one heading that doesn't indicate to the reader what the section will discuss. Within the one section of the article, there are many different points that are outlined that could be broken up into different sections. The article seems to lack a cohesive structure, and this could be distracting to the reader.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are two images included in this article that are well-captioned and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are laid out in a visually appealing way and they aren't too small. The first image shows the title page of an edition of De re aedificatoria, and it enhances the understanding of the topic. The second image shows the plan of a basilica from the book, but this doesn't really enhance understanding of the topic because basilicas were not mentioned in the article. This image would be more relevant if the topic of basilicas was addressed in the article.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There are not any conversations going on behind the scenes on the talk page. The article is a part of the WikiProject Architecture and it is rated stub-class and high-importance. This topic is a very important subject in architecture, but there isn't much content about it on Wikipedia. There are no discussions about this topic on the talk page yet, and the content of the article needs to be improved.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article is rated stub-class and high-importance, so the content of the article is underdeveloped, but it is important in architecture, and therefore should be improved. The strengths of the article are that it is well-written, unbiased, and there are no noticeable grammatical or spelling errors. The article could be improved if it was restructured to include more major sections, if the content was balanced better, and if it included footnotes to match the facts to their sources. I think the completeness of this article is underdeveloped because the references section includes many reliable sources, but these sources aren't utilized very well. I think a lot more information and major themes could be pulled from the included sources to improve the content of the article.


 * 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?

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: