User:Insilvaerrabat/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Tomb of Caecilia Metella

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because a few years ago I used it to make a project about this tomb. The article appears to have pulled together some quality sources regarding its style and construction, as well as the inscription on the front. An article like this provides an interesting example to evaluate because although the topic principally concerns Roman women, it might be possible to offer even more evidence about the specific individual to whom this tomb is dedicated. There are about 3-4 other Wikipedia pages dedicated to distinct Caeciliae Metellae, so it would be nice if we could somehow get these pages to connect or at least converse with another about the significance of the tomb in relation to Roman women in the first century BCE.

Evaluate the Article
This is a very satisfactory article with many helpful and well-cited details. The author provides a thorough and balanced summary of the scholarly state of the question regarding the sarcophagus which is associated with the tomb, but this section also lacks more than one reference (for a section that is made up of two paragraphs). I think the author could go even further in this particular section and give the primary source literary citation for the information about the sarcophagus. The two lead paragraphs seem like they could potentially be swapped in order to achieve a punchier effect; to me at least, the interest and significance of this tomb is the extravagant cost and the lengths to which the designer/builder went to execute their vision. Overall, the writing is clear and concise with one/two minor mistakes. In the “see also” section, this article fails to refer the reader to the 3-4 pages on those individual Caeciliae Metellae, which I think is a bit of an oversight.