User:Jarbobinkly/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: Patronage in ancient Rome
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose to evaluate this article because I found the topic interesting and I want to learn more about it.

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 includes a concise introductory sentence that clearly describes the topic. The lead does an okay job of describing some of the content present in the article. It doesn't really address some of the later small paragraphs but it does include a description for the bulk of content. The lead includes some proposed examples of patronage that do not appear to be expanded upon anywhere in the article. The lead is concise.

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 of the article stays relevant to the topic throughout. The content is as up to date as content concerning ancient Rome can. There seems to be a lot of content missing in the Patronus and libertus section as well as the section concerning patronage in late antiquity and the early middle ages.

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 does a good job of being neutral. It does not over/under represent a view point, nor is it particularly biased towards a single position, nor does it ever make an attempt to persuade the read in favor of a position.

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
Some of the facts in the article are backed up by sources but there are more than a few times that facts are stated without proper sourcing. The sources for the article are not thorough at all. Most of the references are taken from papers on other topics more related to Roman society as a whole rather than on the topic of roman patronage itself. The further reading section includes various papers specifically on the topic that aren't referenced in the article.

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 is pretty hard to read at spots. Some of the sentences are very choppy and feel out of place. That being said most of the article is quite clear and concisely written almost to a fault. I did notice some fluff at the beginning of a few sentences. I didn't notice any spelling errors.

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 one image attached to the article that looks like it belongs to a different but related article. The image is not well captioned as it does not do a good job of explaining how what is pictured is related to the article. The picture adhere's to copyright regulations. The placement of the image is appealing.

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
There is discussion on the talk page from 8-9 years ago about the article being underdeveloped and needing better modern sources. Based on the talk page it seems like the article was the combination of several individual articles on roman patronage that were compiled into a "comprehensive" article. The talk page also states many works in the further reading could be used to improve the article but that these sources are not available online.

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 article is underdeveloped, lacking modern sources, and tough to read in places. The articles strength is it does a decent job of covering the topic with regards to early Rome. The article could be improved with more modern sources by expanding on the sections already in the article. The article could also be improved by improving the readability of what is already present.

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: