User:JamesNavISU/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Medieval technology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
As the training module suggested, I wanted to select an article related to our course. Although many of the centuries in the article are beyond the scope of what we will cover, it is still within a similar period in history. It matters because it demonstrates how European civilization progressed in areas such as farming, sea travel, and a host of other societal aspects through advancements in technology. My first impression is that the article has the right idea in terms of formatting, but could still be organized better. Additionally, consistency in the subsections could also be improved.

Evaluate the article
The lead section contains a short but accurate introductory sentence. This seems like the best kind of introductory sentence for this topic, since it is so broad. The two major sections are civil and military technology, which are not distinguished between in the lead section. There are some references made in the lead section that do not appear again within the article, such as the astrolabe. The lead feels overly detailed in that it focuses on some specific items without summarizing all the sections of the article.

All or most of the content seems to be relevant and up-to-date, made clear by the dates listed along with each example of technology. While not all of the technology listed was invented during this time period, its inclusion relates to how it was improved upon or made use of, which is fitting. I do not think this article deals with Wikipedia's equity gaps. It does focus on European history, but that is fitting for the Medieval definition.

The article overall has a neutral and balanced tone. Again, the article primarily covers European involvement with technology, but it does not exclude mention of where the technology originated from if it was invented elsewhere. No claims seem to be heavily biased, overrepresented, or underrepresented. Minority and fringe points are not very present throughout the article. It also does not feel like it is trying to convince the reader of taking a side. Some words such as "crucial" are used when describing a technology's role in an event, but this does not feel like an argument against another side.

Secondary sources are cited throughout the article and it is not limited to the work of one or a few individuals. The sources are somewhat current, with nearly all being from the latter half of the twentieth century or later. While there are a few works cited by female authors, most of the sources were composed by men. The sources seem to mostly be reliable however, as many are scholarly or done by historians. The links that I checked all seemed to be functioning properly.

The formatting of the article is easily understandable, with technology either being civil or military and then further grouped into sections where related items can be featured. However, the description of the technology varies, with its use sometimes being what is described, while other items only mention when they are first described in writing. The article is mostly free of minor errors, with small exceptions such as Dry Compasses being written in singular form when it should be plural. There are many section relating to the article, but they could also be better organized. For example, technology appears in a list that does not have any noticeable reason for what comes first or last. This could possible be improved with more subsections.

The article includes many useful images depicting the technology being described. The captions are mostly understandable, but a few could be improved for clarity or consistency. All images seem to adhere to Wikipedia's regulations. Images also properly coincide with the technology being described and occur at fitting points throughout the article.

The talk page does not seem to be very active, at least not in the sense of individuals responding back and forth within short periods of time. However, most discussion seems to be around adding or removing information, and how the content of the article can be improved upon. The article is a part of WikiProject Technology. Wikipedia focuses on the individual pieces of technology rather than the broad scope behind technological innovation.

The article currently has a status of C-Class. The article's strengths include having a solid design behind sections and covering technology from across multiple centuries. It can be improved by having more consistency behind what information is provided for specific technologies and potentially having additional organization. How underdeveloped the article is depends on how much information should be provided in an article that is not about one specific technology. Most items listed have their own dedicated articles where they are expanded upon in further detail. Since this article cannot have the full article behind each piece of technology in it, I am uncertain of how much more or less each example would need.