User:JeremyML/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: Hercules
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose this article because it is the same topic that I will be doing my wikipedia project on. This gives me a good opportunity to do some research that I can make use of later on. I chose Hercules because he is a very famous character in ancient Roman history and has had many adaptations in modern film. I think it will be interesting to see how the original stories of the character compare to his more modern counter parts.

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

 * I think the lead does do a good job of introducing the character and summarizing what the article contains. It also mentions that there is another wikipedia article titled "Heracles" which is the same character but of Greek origin. It's good that this was mentioned to clear up any confusion.

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 is relevant but is very limited. It gives a brief overview of the Greek mythology of Hercules and mentions a few myths of Hercules that are from Roman history. It mentions a few of his adaptations in a few other cultures and that's it. It doesn't mention the importance of the character to the Roman people or how he was worshiped at all.

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 remained neutral and unbiased.

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
There were pros and cons to the sources. On the positive side, there are quite a few (12) so the information on the wikipedia page comes from a diverse range. However, the relevancy of the articles seemed to be an issue. Several of them came from the early 1900's. I understand that with a historic figure some of these older sources are completely viable. But I still would like to see some more recent sources to see what new discovers have been made.

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 was definitely well organized and easy to read. It separated the content based on its origin (Greek, Roman, Germanic, Etc) and had sections within each of those headers. The only issue with the content is that it's sparse

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 an abundance of good pictures on the Hercules wikipedia page. The images do a good job showcases what Hercules was depicted as through different time periods. It also has images of Hercules performing the infamous 12 labours

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
This wikipedia page is ranked C. This is simply due to the lack of content. On the talk page, there has been discussion of combining the "Hercules" page and the "Heracles" page together instead of having them separated. I think this would be a good idea because dividing the two suggests that one will focus on the Roman depiction of Hercules and the other the Greek version of Heracles. But the Hercules page already contains a section on his Greek background which makes the separation pointless.

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 articles strengths are its organization and its pictures. The format is very easy to read and the pictures do a great job adding visual aid.

The weakness is its completion. I would consider this article poorly developed and certainly has a lot of information that can be added. I'm going to focus on adding information on the worship of Hercules and his importance to the Roman people.

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: