User:Madalynnabele/Evaluate an Article

Article: Black-figure pottery

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.


 * 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? (It shouldn't.)
 * No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's pretty detailed, I wish it was broken up a little more so I could get better general information before reading the whole article.

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.


 * 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?
 * Yes!

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.


 * 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, not to my knowledge of this topic already
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

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.


 * 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
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * 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.)
 * I'm sure there are! In my searching there are more they could have used, but there is also a diverse usage of some sources already.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

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


 * 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

Images and Media

 * 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

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?
 * There are comments on a couple changes, such as wording or language. There are also comments on how the article may be too long.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * WikiProject Greece (Rated C-class, High-importance)
 * WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated B-class, High-importance)
 * WikiProject Archaeology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
 * WikiProject Visual arts (Rated B-class)
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It's definitely a lot more detailed, which is to be expected with the amount of time we have for class.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article has a lot of information & very well establishes its credibility in its information.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article has a lot of information with gives a lot of background on the topic and where it comes from.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by being a little shorter, or even just by breaking down the sections even more. It's easier to find and understand information in small amounts.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well-developed!!