User:Madrugada11/Evaluate an Article

AWhich article are you evaluating?
Egyptian statue of Darius I

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it relates to Egyptian History, and I think it's relevant to our course. It matters because it's a physical artifact of history, and it's super interesting to think about how things have survived over the years. My preliminary impression of the article was that it does a good job of explaining a brief history of the statue, where it came from, and where it is currently today.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The lead section of this article quickly and concisely summarizes the State of Darius I. It doesn't really include information that isn't in the article, and it is not overly detailed. However, it does briefly mention the Achaemenid period in the lead, and doesn't elaborate on that later in the article.

Content:

All of the content of the article is relevant to the topic, and it is up-to-date (edited 4 days ago). I'm not sure how exactly to define this article in the context of the equity gaps of Wikipedia, but I would say that it doesn't particularly do this, and I think I would say that because of the Egyptomania that still exists today. It's not really about any subject that is represented disproportionately compared to others, but I'm not really sure.

Tone and Balance:

The article is neutral and presents the information in a non-biased way. It isn't a very long article, and it doesn't include any opinions or expressions that can be perceived as opinionated or biased.

Sources and References:

The sources are current, and they are somewhat varied. The authors of the sources are academically credited. All of the links in the article work. However, I did some digging and found this article on JSTOR. It appears that there may be some history behind that statue that involved deliberate damage to the statue and ransacking. This isn't mentioned in the article and I think it's necessary to include this, especially because the article could use some length and variety of sources that expand on the (possibly violent) history behind the statue.

Organization and Writing Quality:

There aren't any mistakes that I noticed, grammatically or otherwise. It uses appropriate text to describe the statue and aspects of its history, as well as being organized appropriately.

Images and Media

It incudes four well captioned images that are relevant to the topic. The photos seem to adhere to what I could find of Wikipedias copyright rules. They could maybe be laid out better, but it's not bad.

Talk Page Discussion:

It includes one comment including mostly grammatical/layout corrections. I believe it is a part of WikiProjects in the statue section, as well as being of interest to a few others. It is a C-class article. Unless I missed it, I don't believe we have discussed it yet in class, I don't think we are there yet chronologically.

Overall Impressions:

I would say that is a really useful article for gaining brief knowledge of the statue of Darius I. However, after seeing a few different academic works mentioning the intentional destruction of the statue, I think that may be a crucial detail to put in the article. The photos are relevant and helpful to the reader. I think the article is well-developed, but could definitely include more information.