User:Kellyngo1234/sandbox

Article evaluation: Ludi Romani

This article is fairly organized writing piece that has some pros:

A definition, followed by a summary, and quick facts box on the side.

Some answers to the following questions:
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Yes, most of the content is relevant to the article topic. Everything is related to the Roman Games. However, some parts of the article had some eye-catching distractions, e.g. using first-person pronouns instead of a third-person ("and we find similar sums..." and "when we are told a day was added to these games as well as some casual language use...")
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Overall, the article seems quite neutral, although it could more professionally written as such. There are phrases of probability, not certainty, e.g. "Most likely, originally..." or "Most probably, says...")
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Some viewpoints that seem overrepresented include Mommsen. The article needs to elaborate more on Livy sources.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Yes, the links do work. And yes the sources do support the claims in the article.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Yes, most of the facts are referenced with an appropriate, reliable references that come from sources of authors who wrote during the Roman times. Of course these sources are often biased, but in the case of a neutral topic like the capitoline games, it's mostly impartial.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Some information that's out of date is the subsection titled "History of Scholarship," which hasn't been annotated in quite some time and is sparse.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There doesn't seem to be much conversations in the Talk box except for one disparaging comment and a suggestion to correct the format of the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is an independent article on a sole subject. The article is rated with unclear citation style.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It differs in that it is not clearly organized. It has some origins but not in-depth details about what happens in the Games.