User:Lampagliacci/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link) Ptolemy
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because Ptolemy is a person we have learned about in class and the prompt said chose someone or something that is relevant to what we have learned in class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The lead is well written. It has an introductory sentence that attributes about four titles to Ptolemy and then addresses those titles later in the article. In this way it also includes brief descriptions of the article's major sections, which are his occupations and major works. The lead is concise. It does not include information that is not present in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
The article's content is is relevant to the topic. The content is up to date (Ptolemy is a historical figure so the only recent content is things that have continued to be named after him). The article does not include any out of place content. The article does not deal with historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is very neutral. There are no persuasive parts of the article. The many occupations and pursuits and identities of Ptolemy are equally represented.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes, as current as they can be.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The references are reliable. The links work. The literature and sites referenced are accurate and recent. The authors are diverse and come from many different backgrounds.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
I found the article easy to follow and easy to read. I appreciated how it was broken into his most prominent works and occupations. I thought it was well organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
There are only a few artist depictions of Ptolemy as well as his work (maps and manuscripts). All are well captioned and fit well within the surrounding text.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Conversations about his poetry, and his Roman vs Greek-Egyptian citizenship.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated C-class. It is involved of numerous projects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It is much more in depth on wikipedia and also includes lots of information about things named after Ptolemy which is something we have not touched on.

Talk page evaluation
One of the more prominent conversations is about Ptolemy's nationality (citizenship). There is another conversation about his work as a poet. There is also a question about his written language of Koine. The article is listed as a level-4 vital article in People and is rated as C-class. It is involved in the following WikiProjects: Biography/Science and Academia, History of Science, Astronomy, Mathematics/Mathematicians, Astrology, Classical Greece and Rome, Philosophy, Geography, Religion, and Environment. There is also a conversation discussing the over-quotation of non-free text as well as an opinion of "Was Ptolemy's geocentricism a blunder?" and very few additions beneath both conversations.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Up to date and complete.
 * What are the article's strengths? The use of greek translation, the description of Ptolemy's works, and the things named after him (I found it interesting).
 * How can the article be improved? It seemed pretty much as good as it could get in my opinion. The reference for 17 is oddly a block quote just right there in the references list and if that could be condensed into a true citation then it would most likely make the references appear more organized.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Yes, the article is well-developed.

Overall evaluation
The article is complete, well developed, and interesting! The citations are extensive and well sourced. The talk page was enlightening. I appreciated the organization of the article and the way it flowed.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: