User:Mattfudge1/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) Archon Archon
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen this article because I am interested in the topic.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


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

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes the the content within the article is relevant, it is all related to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes the content is up to date, the last time it was edited was February 9th 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the information seems to be relevant to the topic, I do not believe any information is missing from this article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes this article is neutral, I can not see any bias opinions within the article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? It does not appear that any information within the article is bias toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All the view points within the article seem to be presented well, I can not see any view points that are underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another? No this article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favour of any position nor away from another. It is a factual article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the article is backed up by many reliable secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the sources reflect the many available pieces of literature about the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Yes the sources are current, that is comparing the sources to the time of the topic however.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes all the links work, however I did find one link that leads to a dead end.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the article is very well written, it is clear concise, easy to read and extremely educative.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No the article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the article is very well organized, it is broken down into two main sections. Yes the sections reflect the major points of the topic extremely well.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No the article does not include any images at all.
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Yes there are conversations going on in the talk page. All discussions are weather to add information or make changes to the information already stated in the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes it is part of Wiki Project Ancient Greece. I believe this article is rated as a start article.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The wikipedia article on Archons offers a broader perspective Than the way we discussed it in class. There is more information than what we discussed in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article seems extremely informative to me but I am only slightly educated on the topic. The article seems to be very strong and have a good overall status. I do believe it is rated as a start article however.
 * What are the article's strengths? I feel the articles strengths are that it sets a broad view on the topic. It is also extremely informative, well written and easy to comprehend.
 * How can the article be improved? I feel that maybe adding some images may be helpful for other readers to truly get an understanding of the topic, although the article explains the topic extremely thoroughly.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? In my opinion the article is very complete. I personally know of nothing that I could add to this article. I believe this is a well developed article.

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: