User:Jarends1013/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.


 * List of Russian monarchs: (List of Russian monarchs)
 * It's a topic that I have interest in and I want to refresh my knowledge of the monarchs in Russian history.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise for the most part. Mentions some individual leaders

Lead evaluation
It's a good lead, however, I dislike that it mentions so many individual monarchs, I think a few is fine, but not the amount that is listed. The author mentions how Rurik is "semi-legendary" which I don't think should be in the article. It seems opinion based. Also the author could've put Cyrillic spelling in parenthesis. Like for Tsar write Царь. He does put the Cyrillic spelling in the content part of the section, so I don't think it matters all that much, it just looks much better.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No all the information belongs and nothing is misplaced.

Content evaluation
It's good, the author writes names in Old Church Slavonic or Russian, depending on the time. They provide the date of the reign start and end, provides notes, and what family they were from, and even provides an image. Provides information on the Times of Trouble and on the start of the Romanov dynasty. It is up to date and nothing is missing.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? No, it has been disputed before.  Additionally, I think it's not because they call Rurik "semi-legendary" and thus breaking the neutral stand point.  There are some other instances of the writer making claims without a source.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, especially the earlier times, it makes some claims that are not cited.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, I think everything is covered well.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Maybe, but the claims are not cited so I don't think there's a reason a reader should be persuaded.

Tone and balance evaluation
It's not neutral there are some statements that are opinion based and some lines are not cited.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, one part is talking about the Russian Orthodox Church and is not followed by a reference unless it was mentioned in a source before. They also talk about the importance of a city but is not backed by a source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. However, there are probably more sources they could've referenced to. One of the issues the article has is the insufficient inline citations and some sources remain unclear.
 * Are the sources current? Some are recent, some are a bit older.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes all the links provided do work.

Sources and references evaluation
Bad, some reference I cannot check to see if they are good or what is written. I think that the main issue with the article is the sources and therefore the article loses some quality to it because of it. The sources that I could check were good and provided good information

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, breaking it up into tables is easy to read, clear labels breaking up different sections in Russian history.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I can see.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, everything is broken into different time periods of Russian history in chronological order. Before each section it states what was happening at that time and gives insight on how some leaders came to be.

Organization evaluation
Organization of the article is good. Everything is clear and easy to follow.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, images on most of the rulers.
 * Are images well-captioned? While they are not captioned they supplement the information given to the reader.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, some pictures are hard to see, but it wouldn't make sense to make the tables bigger to make the pictures bigger.

Images and media evaluation
Images are a nice addition to the article and help people give a name to a face.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are no talks going on right now.  But the history of the talk page is concerning for the article.  The talk page brings up many points about the how the article doesn't make all that much sense.  It also mentions some other smaller things.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is not rated.  It is a part of a few WikiProjects.  These include, WikiProject Russa, History, Lists, and Biography.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? They are concerned with the structure of the article and the main point of the article.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page brings up some really good questions towards the validity of the article. It would provide some good questions for someone to work on this article later.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It's pretty poor once you actually start to get into it and think about it. It's serves it's purpose if someone wants a quick look.  But If someone wants to do research and actually learn more, they might run into some issues.
 * What are the article's strengths? It does it's job if some one is just wondering who ruled when.
 * How can the article be improved? Improved sources and references. A more defined meaning of Russian monarchs.  Like are we talking about all Russian leaders? Or just before Soviet ruling?  Is it just the Tsars?  Yes, it is answered by giving us all the leaders from the Rurik dynasty to the end of the Romonov.  But I don't think some leaders were monarchs, like during the Muscovy period because they aren't even Russian, the Rurik's aren't even Russian, they are Rus.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Poorly developed, just needs to define the main problem, get better sources and cite more.

Overall evaluation
The article does what it needs to, list out the Russian leaders. But it does not do a good job at the smaller details. It has some unclear sources and some opinions. I think if the article can clean this stuff up and clear up the title I think it would be a solid article. I think that this article is really important however to learning about Russian leaders.

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: