User:Kjhrdt/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Anthemius of Tralles

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The Byzantine Empire was somewhat overshadowed by the growing Islamic Empire to it's east, and the falling and rising Kingdoms to it's west. It would be fascinating to see what they contributed to the medivial sciences. My initial impressions were that it was quite sparse in the writing about Anthemius, with a few tangents going off in the readings about his family and brothers. I does not seem to be able to stay on topic.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is sparse, but the sentence itself does provide a decent summary of what the article will be about. But it does not touch on any of the future major sections of the article besides for a handful of words about his future and hand in designing the hagia sophia. But it it is not concise or overly detailed because it is missing most of the information that is mentioned in the article itself, which in of itself is very little.

Content that it provides is relevant to the article, it speaks on his time both as a Mathematician and a Architect. The speaking about his brothers does not really have a place in the article though, it does not even speak about it later on in the article. Rather it seems more closer to an off handed remark than an actual piece of valuable information. It addresses some underrepresented populations, but very little when it speaks on Islamic scholars using his work later on. Missing a lot of content, it does not really mention much about what he did besides for a single book that he wrote and his collaborative effort in designing the Hagia Sophia.

Overall tone is very neutral, it is one of the strong suits of this article as a whole. Nothing is over represented, because not much is talked about at all. But the tone itself stays fair and balanced in its presentation of the little bit of information that it does present.

In terms of sources there are not that many, and many seem to be pretty dated with the newest source being written in 2011 and that was the only written this century. They all seem to be linked properly, and do discuss what the sources say. The sources are not very diverse, seemingly coming from mostly English (American/British) scholars, and seem to be on average very dated in their publication date. Their are a few more newer sources that could be used.

Only two images are seen in the article, those being the cover of his book and the Hagia Sophia which he helped design. They adhere to copyright, but they don't seem to do anything else than fill up space with seemingly random placement in the article. With only the image of the Hagia Sophia being placed around the correct place.

Grammatically it seems to be a little bit all over the place. No spelling errors, or any egregious grammatical errors. Its organization does seem off, as when reading it, it feels like it jumps from one topic to another seemingly at random and without much reason or flow into the next section of the article.

The talk page seems to be mostly talking about the writing, and what articles to include. They rated this article as a Stub.

My overall view of this article is that it was written by someone with good intentions, but was a bit awkward in writing. And written by someone without necessary sources to go deep in depth.