User:KendallUW/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Palazzo Pubblico

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.) I chose this article to evaluate because I was interested in the medieval city Siena, Italy, and its system of government. It's a special city because it was governed by a republic in a time of royalty and clergy. Palazzo Pubblico was Siena's city hall and the focal point of the city.

My first impression of the article was that it was well done, but I quickly realized that the article had some faults.

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.)

Lead section: The lead section was brief and concise, but did not outline the article's major sections. The lead section contains details about Siena's system of government that are not mentioned in the body of the article.

Content: The article focuses on two major points: the building's architecture and the frescoes inside. The architecture section is short; it could go into much more detail. The section of frescoes is much longer, but still feels incomplete. Photographs throughout the article show some examples of the frescoes, but it would be nice to see lots more. This is a historical city, so there aren't any equity gaps that need filling. With only two sections, more points about the building should be detailed.

Tone and Balance: Since the history is basically a factual recounting, there shouldn't be any minority positions that need addressed. None are mentioned; if there are any, those will need researched and addressed.

Sources and References: This is the primary point of concern for the article: Only one reference is cited, and it is a historical book that presents a point of view, rather than dry facts.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is proofread fairly well, with few copywriting errors. Language is professional. Exact sentences can be found on another website, but it isn't clear to me who is plagiarizing whom, or if they had permission to use each other's work.

Images and Media: Images should be larger to be able to understand the meanings of frescoes that are shown. Not all images are properly cited.

Talk page: This article is rated high importance on two WikiProjects: Italy and Architecture: Historical Houses. But the talk page is very brief, and it's clear it hasn't been edited extensively. Compared to us discussing it in class, Wikipedia goes into a little more detail and also indicates that other cities had Palazzo Pubblicos, not only Siena. Overall, class and Wikipedia are in agreement though.

Overall impressions: The article is written in a professional manner, but with a few major faults: insufficient citations; lack of organization; few talking points; and small images (although you can click on them to view a larger image).

--KendallUW