User:Kj3gomez/Renaissance of the 12th century

{| class="wikitable" Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * Evaluate an article
 * Evaluate an article

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Yes Yes No The lead includes the changes occuring during the 12th Century Renaissance which are further elaborated in the following sections.
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Yes. There is an overview for the social, political, and economic changes occurring during this period. The articles give enough detail where the information is not overwhelming. No. The historiography includes only Charles Homer Haskins and brief mention of an art historian Kenneth Clark. There is a lot of missing content. The article only focuses on Charles Homer Haskins argument from 1927. Although he is an important Medievalist Historian, there have been countless arguments made since Haskin regarding the 12th Century Renaissance. The information focuses on the elite during this time. There seems to be a lack of context for the social, political, and economic changes impacted or were perceived by lay people. There should be more mention of the lack of political structure throughout Eastern and Western Europe. There is no information that would apply to the daily lay person. There is mention of new trade with the Middle East which is inaccurate because trade relationships in the Mediterranean have been present prior to this periodization. The article portrays continental Europe as orderly and put together which was not necessarily the case.
 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Yes. Nothing in the article suggests any group is more important or valuable than another group. The article just lacks context for the 12 century. The transformational social, political, and economic change only apply to those who were members of the church or wealthy individuals who had access to trade goods or intellectual materials. They are not mentioned. No
 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

The secondary sources of information were for the ost part reliable and were published in prestigious universities. But the sources are outdated. Oneof the books comes from an author instead of a historian. The sources are reliable but there should have been an updated list of historiography. Two of the sources include links to the books in the bibliography. No The sources are not diverse and d not include marginalized individuals. The only source that could have been better was the author Susan Bauer. It would have made more sense to used an updated peer reviewed article. Yes.
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

The article is easy to read and follow. I did not notice any offensive grammatical or spelling errors. Yes
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media
I think the image choices were kind of weak. There could be a better map that presents a better visual for how Europe looked during this time. I don't think the images were chosen carefully enough to represent art, science, and growth of intellectualism that the article calls for. Yes Yes Yes, they are not distracting from the article in any way but I honestly overlooked most of them.
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions
I thought this article was pretty weak in terms of information. It is not necessarily unreliable, but it could go into more depth and include a better general picture. The article does mention the intellectual movements at the time and the importance of the reemergence of Greco Roman Classics. The article portrayed Europe during the Middle Ages as almost orderly and separated from each other. I think the article should present a divers, interdependent, and interconnected tripartite world of Western Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic Empire. The article needs newer and updated sources. I think there should be more context included for what the 12th century was actually like. The article came across as Eurocentric. It wasn't necessarily offensive but I don't think it reflected the experiences and social, economic, and political structures.
 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * } Because of the lack of modern historical arguments for this time period the article came across from the point of view of a 19th century historian and didn't give insight into the 12h century other than the 1% of elites or clergy who would have experienced an early Renaissance.