User:Jmorley89/Evaluate an Article

Topography of ancient Rome
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Topography of ancient Rome
 * I chose this article to evaluate because I am interested in what the city of Rome looked like in ancient times. This also links with my overall assignment of the term as I want to incorporate how the topography of ancient Rome affected the building of the Servian Wall.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead is short and focuses more on the two books about topography of ancient Rome then a brief overview of the actual topography of ancient Rome
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No. As in the last answer, the Lead only looks at two books that have been published on the topography of ancient Rome and a very brief meaning of topography.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead does not have any information on what topography of ancient Rome was like. Only on the books that were written about the subject.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * No. The Lead leaves a lot to be desired on the topic.

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
There is no information on what the topography of ancient Rome is like. The articles only has information on books or articles written about the subject.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Since there is no information on what the topography of ancient Rome was or how it was changed during the history of the city, there is no tone on the actual subject. There is a line in the lead that tells us that the book written in 1929 on the subject (A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome) has been found to be unreliable.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims one way or the other on the topic. Only information on past research that was done on the subject.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Neither. The viewpoints on the topography of ancient Rome are nonexistent.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another?
 * No. There is no attempt to persuade the reader.

Tone and balance evaluation
There is nothing in the way of what the topography of ancient Rome is or how it has changed. The article only talks about those who have written about the subject and there is no information on the actual topography. There is no heights of the seven hills or any information on the surrounding area.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The facts are cited properly. The footnotes for the facts are all from a handful of sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources that are used are only a few, because of this I do not think that the sources are thorough enough for the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources that are cited in this particular article are fairly recent, one of sources was published in 2003, 2005.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes. The links that I checked do work and either lead to other Wikipedia articles or to external websites.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources used in this article are only a few. The article focuses more on the researchers who wrote about the topography and not the actual topography is.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is fairly well written in terms of presenting the different researchers who wrote about the topic. Unfortunately there is no information on the actual topography of ancient Rome.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No. This article only talks about the research done on the subject and no information on the subject itself.

Organization evaluation
There is, in my opinion, no organization of information of the topography. While I do agree that showing what research has been done, there is no information on the actual topography.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article has one image. Planter's map of Rome
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes. The single image in the article has a good caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes. The image is in the public domain and adheres to the copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Since there is only one image in the article, at the top right, I believe that it is laid out in a visually appealing way.

Images and media evaluation
There is only one image in this article which was published in 1911. This leaves a lot of room for improvement and more images to be added so that someone viewing this article can understand the topography more.

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 is one conversation on this article. The user says that the article should be renamed so as to show that the article does not refer to the Roman Empire, but to the actual city itself.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated at a start class. It is part of the Classical Greece and Rome, Rome, and Maps WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is only one discussion on the talk page about this article. Compared to what we have talked about in class, this is very different and needs some work done on it.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page for this article only has one discussion that was posted in 2015. Since then there has been no move to change the name of the article or to update it in any way.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is mid to low-importance.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * I do not think there are any strengths in this article
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article could be improved by adding information on the topography of ancient Rome and how it has changed. Adding images of topographical maps to show the differences in elevation and how the topography effected the lives of the people who lived there.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think that this article is very underdeveloped. There is no information on what the topography is, what the elevations of the seven hills are, or how the topography has changed over the years.

Overall evaluation
This article needs a lot of work to be done on it. Information on what the actual topography is, elevations of the seven hills, how the low lands differ from the higher elevations, etc.

More images need to be added in order for a user to be able to understand what the topography of ancient Rome was like.

I don't think the name of the article needs to be changed, rather the information needs to be updated to focus more on the subject.

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: