User:Jsdento/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Guiding Questions

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence is brief and gives the most important information on the topic.


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's main sections?
 * This article lacks any main sections, but it does provide an overview of the topic.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, because there is no body sections yet.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise, but possibly slightly over detailed.

Guiding Questions

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up to date?
 * The content appears to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or does not belong?
 * Yes, here are no body sections to expand on the information in the lead section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Guiding Questions

 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, it is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There seems to be an over emphasis on Herodicus' theory on massage therapy that should be deemphasized a little bit.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No, the article does not mark any viewpoints as minority or fringe views.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it is neutral.

Guiding Questions

 * Are all the facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, there are some claims that should have cited sources but do not.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they do.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some are slightly older, but all are reasonably new except for one source from 1871.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * There is one source written by a woman.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer reviewed articles, in place of news coverage or random websites?
 * All sources used are of high quality.
 * Check a few links, do they work?
 * The links work.

Guiding Questions

 * Is the article well written - i.e. is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * There is nothing terrible about the writing, but its organization and flow could be much better.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not catch 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, the article lacks any body sections so all the relevant information is crammed into the lead section awkwardly.

Guiding Questions

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is an illustration of Herodicus that does not enhance understanding, but improves the page by making it visually more interesting.
 * Are images well captioned?
 * Not particularly.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Guiding Questions

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The only discussion is about some modified external links
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated Stub class and is a part of WikiProjects: Greece, Classical Greece and Rome, Biography, and Medicine.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not discussed this topic in class.

Guiding Questions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Stub
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article contains a wide coverage of the main points of the topic, but fails to expand those points.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The most significant improvements include the addition of a body section and more detailed information of the main points covered in the lead section.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. is the article well developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is not complete yet, and requires more development.