User:IamEmpressDowager/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Spartan army

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen to evaluate the article, Spartan army because this is an integral topic when it comes to discussing Sparta. I also believe that there is a high public interest in the topic, given popularity by movies such as 300 (film). So, it would be beneficial to update this article with information as accurate as possible for interested readers. I found that many areas in this article can be improved, such as its source of references, the overall tone, inconsistency in writing styles, and the biased language in specific paragraphs. I also believe my initial evaluation closely aligns with its C-Class and B-Class status. While the article touches on some of the fundamental points regarding Spartan army, one can add more details to improve its quality.

Lead Section
I find the lead section to be one of the poorest constructed paragraphs in this article for the following reasons:


 * The introductory sentence states that "citizens trained in the disciplines and honor of a warrior society," which I find calling Sparta a "warrior society" is a borderline value judgement.
 * The last section, where it disputes the Spartan terminology, has no corresponding discussion in the content. I believe it would be more appropriate to mention this idea and elaborate more in the content section, with a link to the Sparta article, which has a specific paragraph on the issues surrounding its names. Alternatively, please consider omitting completely.
 * Citation 3 leads to Oxford Classical Dictionary, which is simply another encyclopedia. I would suggest finding a peer-reviewed academic journal or published book as a better source of information.
 * The first paragraph also quotes Thucydides with no citation. The editor should give both the work and the book number here.
 * The same paragraph discusses the alleged tradition that Spartans had the practice to abandon weak infants. This point is now disputed among scholars, and the article should note this information is up for debate.
 * It also claims that Athens had the same practice, which seems dubious in my opinion. This point here requires citation.
 * It also directly quotes one of the sources it references. While the quote is from a published book, the tone is too persuasive. One should also minimize the usage of a direct quotation.
 * There is also a grammar mistake and general unclear writing in the following sentence, "Their education focused primarily on cunning, ..." The editor perhaps means cunningness.
 * In general, the lead section does not provide a complete overlook of all the following major sections; there is no mention of parts such as the Spartan army's tactical structure.

Content
The content is quite extensive; however, I believe one can improve it in the following areas:


 * All of the content is indeed linked to the Spartan army and has been edited continuously. I believe no content should be omitted, except for the several lines in the lead section, which mentions Sparta's many different names. In my opinion, readers can go to the Sparta page if they are interested.
 * There is no mention of the Spartan army's status post 371 BC. I believe it would be fairer to include information about the Spartan army even after the polis ' status declined.
 * Under The "History " section, the sub-section of "Mycenaean age" discusses the Spartan army through referencing the Iliad. Since the Iliad is more or less a semi-mythical source and is certainly not wrong to discuss, it would perhaps be more well-rounded to mention very briefly about Menelaus, Helen of Troy, q and quickly explain the Trojan War.

Tone and Balance

 * It is evident that this article relies on multiple contributions. The tone is most un-neutral in the lead section and the "Philosophy, education, and the Spartan code" section. I suspect the editor(s) responsible for these parts come from a quite "pro-Spartan" perspective.
 * For example, in "Spartan Philosophy"'s sub-section, it includes the line "[Spartans were] admired for their intellectual culture and poetry." Since there is no further evidence to support the claim, I find this sentence empty even though it is not inherently wrong in itself. In general, this specific section is often comparing Sparta to Athens, and I would suggest finding better quality sources and re-work the part altogether.

Sources and References
In my opinion, the sources and references are the most urgent problem with this article.


 * Firstly, for an article this length, I expect to see more than seven academic references, which causes the article to be over-reliant on very few authors' works. I would also suggest finding more recent academic journals, preferably those published within the last ten years, to ensure the content remains updated with the latest studies in the field today.
 * This article also references several websites that are not academic in nature, for example, references 14 and 16.
 * The article often mentions primary sources but fails to provide a proper reference, such as the name of the work, book, and line number. This may be close to being classified as plagiarism and should be corrected as soon as possible.
 * For example, the "social structure" sub-section utilizes a quote from Plutarch's The Life of Agesilaus. However, the paragraph does not discuss the quote. Therefore, it would make no difference in the paragraph's impact and clarity if it were to be removed.
 * I also find a lack in the number of citations. It would be more proper to cross-reference the information with multiple secondary sources when possible when interpreting a primary source.

Organization and writing quality

 * I find the entire "History" section the most concise and clear sections for this page. There are no grammatical or spelling errors I can otherwise spot in the whole article. However, I would suggest simplifying some fo the longer run-on sentences.
 * What I do find a future editor can improve is the section of "Spartan navy". I believe instead of labelling it as a stand-alone section, perhaps consider making it a sub-section under "army organization."
 * Under the "Training" section, there is a paragraph dedicated to how Spartan young men come to gain the status of Spartiates. There is a slight overlap here with information in the "social structure" section. Thus, I would incorporate this part into the earlier "social structure" section.

Images and Media

 * I find the images to be quite well-captioned and incorporated when necessary. The only change I would make is to the section "Clothing, arms, and armours," I would recommend finding a picture of perhaps a diagram or a reconstruction of what the paragraph discusses. A proper image here can enhance the reader's visual understandings further.
 * From my understanding, none of the images violate Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Talk page discussion

 * The talk page for this article is quite productive, and most editors are concerned about the correctness of its information and the quality of its writing style.
 * The article rates as a C-class under WikiProject Military history and B-class under WikiProject Greece and WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. However, several editors agree on the talk page that it really should be given a "start" class rating.
 * TonyTheTiger also discusses the images have copyright issues, which I shall claim no expertise in this area, but is most defiantly worth further investigating.
 * The editors who have worked on this article leaves me with the impression that they certainly believe that Sparta was a military state to a great extent. However, this idea is often challenged in class. For example, recently, we have discussed how Sparta could have exaggerated its military power for propaganda.

Overall impressions
Upon a close evaluation, I consider this article's rating no higher than a C-class due to its biased writing reflected in its tones and choice of words and the severe lack of citations. However, this is not to say the article has no strengths. Its contents are quite thorough and are mostly well-organized. While the page is underdeveloped, it is a decent starting point, and I would focus on finding more and better sources, which would help eliminate the bias language and add more details.

Instructor Feedback
Great work, IamEmpressDowager, you've done a really impressive amount of work on this page! A few things to note, going forward: I'm not sure I'd say "warrior society" is biased in and of itself, but perhaps the inclusion of the word "honor" in that sentence is, because without explanation it does suggest a "greatness". Also, the Oxford Classical Dictionary can definitely be used as a source, since it's specialized (not generalized like Britannica) - but, ultimately, you are absolutely right in noting that there are MUCH better sources out there than the ones currently listed on this page, and all your comments about scope and relevance are spot on. I hope you feel empowered and confident to make some of those changes to this page! Excellent work, keep it up.

I see you selected Sparta (mythology) as your article on the dashboard, that's great - it is a stub-class article, so it needs a lot of work! For the exercises due this week (Copy editing, adding a sentence/citation), you can either choose to add a citation on Sparta (mythology) or on this same article you evaluated (Spartan Army), but you won't be able to copyedit Sparta (mythology) because it's such a fragmentary article. You've already done such great work on the army page that you'll probably find it easy to copyedit. Let me know what you decide, and don't hesitate to reach out with questions! Gardneca (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)