User:Macarroll924/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Gorgias (dialogue)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate the page of the text Gorgias (as opposed to the person) because I referred to it when I was writing my responses to the the discussion questions because I needed was discussing the Gorgias but I needed a refresher in order to actually write about it. I noticed that it was relatively short, so I wanted to look at in more in depth. I also noticed that this and other important works were not listed on the "rhetoric" category page.

Evaluate the article
Lead: I think the lead paragraph is a bit too detailed, yet is missing some information. The last 2 sentences read as more of a background, rather than overview of the entire article. That background is also not anywhere else in the article.

Content (Tone & Balance): The article doesn't do much beyond summarizing the text. It points out the major themes and offers synopses of each section of the text. It does not offer any background or historical context (apart from the little bit in the lead), and doesn't point out any popular arguments or difference in translations. i also think that the "major themes" section could be more developed. I think it should also describe the impact of the Gorgias on the modern world (although that could easily become too argumentative). Because it is mostly summary, it is very neutral, but there is so much conversation surrounding this piece, so I think it would be beneficial to state key arguments among rhetoricians.

Sources: There are not many sources used in this article. In fact, the Gorgias itself is not cited (it is listed in the "Translations" section).There's also a "Sources" and a "Citations" section, which I'm a bit confused about. Regardless, most of the web links on this page are to other Wiki articles. There are some paragraphs that do not have any citations in them, so I don't think it is cited enough. There are only 6 "Sources" and 4 "Citations". From what I can tell, 8 of the cited sources were written by men, with only two by women. What I find interesting, though, is that the sources seem to be argumentative and analytical, while that is not how the page reads.

Organization: The two main sections of the article are Themes and Summary (in that order). I think it might be more logical to have summary first (after background and historical context), followed by the themes, and then perhaps, key arguments.

Images: There is only one image, on the righthand text box, which offers other links to the "Platonism" series. The picture is one of Plato and it is well captioned.

Talk Page: The last post on this Talk page was in 2011, and they added the information that I found inappropriate for the lead, as well as some subheadings. The posts before that were from 2006 and 2007, noting that the page needed major revision and discussion of the key arguments. The article is a part of 4 Wiki Projects, rated C-class, mid importance in most of them. It's listed as a level 5 vital article, so I find it surprising that it has not been worked on more.

Overall: I think there is a lot of work that needs to be done on this article. It is a good summary, but it does not do much beyond that. I think there is a lot more to be said about the Gorgias that this article does not do.

Comments from Dr. Vetter
hello - Smart evaluation of this article! While the topic is pretty mainstream (Platonic Rhetoric) and our project is geared towards improving representation of alternative rhetorics in Wikipedia...if you feel really interested/excited to work on this one, that is OK with me. Or you can keep looking. Either way, I think you've done a nice job with the eval. I agree with you about the organization. Summary should really come first. And I am also surprised (like you) that there isn't more content here. It definitely could use a little more background/historical and cultural context, as well as a section on "Impact to Modern Rhetorical Theory and Philosophy" or something to that effect. While you're right that edits should avoid argumentative/analytic styles themselves, YOU CAN report on what others have argued, as long as you don't focus too much on one particular viewpoint.

I would definitely think that working on in-line citations, adding a few new sections and sources, would be a great improvement to this article. If you do decide to work on it, just keep in mind that you don't have to DO EVERYTHING. It is OK to just improve bits and pieces of the article so don't feel too overwhelmed! I can help you with the sources/citations system as well.

DarthVetter (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)