User:Jothrelkeld/Evaluate an Article

Name of article: Pisa Griffin
I have chosen this article as my evaluation practice as it pertains to the subject of medieval Islamic art that my class is focused upon. It also offers an amount of information that is substantial enough to evaluate in terms of organizational patterns. Furthermore, it has an incredibly diverse reference section, indicating that the information within the article has been well researched and collaborated on.

Lead evaluation
The Lead does offer an introductory sentence that encapsulates the article's subject well, but it does seem to me that the Lead is a bit too lengthy. It puts forward information and facts about the Pisa Griffin that would be better suited in later paragraphs. It does, however, offer a very clear description for the article's layout and how it will present information to the reader.

Content evaluation
All the article's contents pertain to the history of the Pisa Griffin, with up-to-date information regarding the object. It provides ample background of the statue's historical context as well. The article has been edited relatively recently, which indicates that the article has covered some of the most recent scholarship on the Pisa Griffin. I would also argue that the article addresses a topic and history that is not represented fairly in Western historical studies. The history of Islam within Europe is often ignored or neglected, and this article presents irrefutable evidence that Islamic communities existed throughout Europe in medieval times.



Tone and balance evaluation
The article does an excellent job of staying away from value statements that might denote the author(s)' viewpoints or opinions regarding the Pisa Griffin. Furthermore, as it has a large array of source material, the article's contents presents multiple viewpoints from a diverse group of scholarly studies. With this in mind, it seems fair to say that the article is well balanced and presents unbiased information with no intent to persuade the reader.

Sources and references evaluation
Each overtly stated fact in the article is supported by a verifiable secondary source. The sources also seem to be diverse in their authorship, which indicates that the editors of the Wikipedia article made good attempts to ensure they did not present a singular opinion or view about the Pisa Griffin. Furthermore, the sources are varied in their presentations, as some are from books in print and others are from online articles. Most of the sources are dated from the 21st century, which indicates they are some of the most recent scholarship on the object and its historical context.

Organization evaluation
The article has a clearly discernible structure, which makes digesting and understanding the information presented within it much easier. There is little to no superfluous information written which also helps to keep the reader focused on the subject of discussion. I could not find any grammatical or spelling errors contained within the text, as I believe the article has been thoroughly edited by a multitude of Wikipedia editors. Furthermore, the content follows the structure that is laid out at the beginning of the article which helps to keep the article from feeling under-planned or rushed.

Images and media evaluation
All the images contained in the article are relevant to the Pisa Griffin, as they are all images of the Griffin itself or of images similar to it for historical context. They are all captioned in such a way that the viewer can immediately tell what it is exactly that they are looking at. Furthermore, each image has a verifiable citation and follows the rules of plagiarism and copyright infringement that Wikipedia enforces. The images also pertain to the subject of the subheading which it is closest to. This makes each image especially illuminating, considering the rather dense descriptions of the Pisa Griffin.

Talk page evaluation
This article was actually edited and fact checked by a class at the University of Texas at Austin from exactly one year ago. There is not much conversation going on on the Talk page, but some editors have provided possibly helpful additional information regarding some ambiguous sections of the article from years past. The article is apart of some WikiProjects and has received a C-class rating.

Overall evaluation
After reading the article in its entirety, I felt that it was well-organized and provided information about the topic in a clear and concise way. The article was not biased toward one opinion or belief and made sure to present a multitude of possibilities and viewpoints for currently undetermined aspects of the Pisa Griffin. With that being said, I believe the article could be expanded upon and include more information about the object's exterior design outside of the objective description from the beginning of the article. The history of the object is beautifully elaborate upon, but I would like for the subheadings of the article to be expanded on to some extent. Overall, the article has a developed and clear presentation, but feels as though it is lacking in the information it presents.

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:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pisa_Griffin