User:Lperkins5825/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: Ur
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I am very interested in Middle Eastern history and archaeology, and this specific city is topic of interest for a friend of mine.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead gives various spellings of the city in different languages and gives some more specific geographic information as an bearing method for the modern reader. The number of languages that the name is presented in gives a hint as to the various ethnicities of inhabitants and rulers over the years it was occupied. It gives a small summary of the name's origin, as well as some cultural information (related to the name), and an estimated establishment date. Finally, the lead discusses the famous Ziggurat, and a little of its history. I wouldn't say that it necessarily describes the city, more its location and a particularly famous site within the city. There is not much about the importance of the city or if it was involved particularly heavily in any period.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is a contents section, but no discussion of it in what I would call the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the goddess after whom the city was named and dedicated is only mentioned in the lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is overly detailed in some places and not detailed enough in others. The information about the Ziggurat perhaps should have been saved for further down in the article. There should have been a concise addition of the cities importance, either to the archaeological record or in its own time as a port/access route.

Lead evaluation
Needs work on the conciseness and deciding which information in relevant for the lead, but otherwise informative.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it covers some of the culture of the city, its history, and its modern importance as a cultural site and as an archaeological site.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, there are references from 1920-2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is an entire section separated for music, yet there is only one sentence in the section. Perhaps it is unfinished, but it should be merged into the section on society and culture. It is a physical description of lyres found in the city, seemingly superfluous. The lyres are mentioned later, once more in the section of the dig seasons at Ur, and used as a hyperlink to a page on the Lyres of Ur. This link is not present in the section on Music (instead there is a hyperlink to the lyre as a musical instrument, rather than their history with Ur). Pretty much none of the information in the article titled the "Lyres of Ur" is present in the article on Ur.
 * There is also a perhaps superfluous section on a site 15km away from Ur and its archaeology.

Content evaluation
Very relevant and informative, though perhaps some formatting changes and a little more specific and relevant information.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Mostly; there is one use of "barbarian" to describe the rulers of the city for a few decades, though perhaps I am being overly picky and the word is meant more as a descriptor than in a derogatory sense?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The section on the Identification with biblical Ur is perhaps a little short, but there is a hyperlink to an article on the biblical Ur.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, a very neutral tone; information for the sake of information and no obvious other purpose.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes; some sources a reports of archaeological finds and others are books interpreting/ analyzing those finds. Others are overarching historical information, which is usually collected as secondary source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes; there are encyclopedias, academic reports, informative books, magazines, and websites.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Good sources that are from a wide and current period, that cover a wide variety of subjects involved with the topic of Ur.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, some parts have more complicated grammar than strictly necessary, but don't take much to decipher.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Ziggurat is spelled two different ways; multiple times as "ziggurat" and once as "ziqqurat".
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Organization evaluation
Good organization that seems well planned.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes; there are maps and pictures of the site, as well as of objects and artifacts found that the site.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, they are all either public domain or properly cited.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There is a little too much favoring on the right side of the page, but that is mostly an opinion.

Images and media evaluation
Images enhance understanding of the subject.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are conversations on the Biblical Ur section and its accuracy, as well as the reporting and fixing of other errors in the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated C-class, and is in involved in WikiProjects Iraq, Ancient Near East, Archaeology, Bible, and Cities.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedians are a little more frank with each other than I expected.

Talk page evaluation
An interesting look at the evolution of the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article still definitely needs work, but already takes shape as an informative article.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * I would say the sheer amount of information, but that seems to perhaps be a weakness.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Information should be condensed and made slightly more relevant to the topic. Some of it feels tangential.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is developed, but still needs more attention.

Overall evaluation
A good article, still in need of much work.

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: