User:Mbbrice/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)Nefertiti
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have always been fascinated by Ancient Egypt and particularly intrigued by Nefertiti.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Yes, it provides a brief phrase to begin the topic. There is a table of contents but no real explanation to the discussed sections. There is a lot of information in the lead regarding the possibility of her many names which is not addressed in the article later on. Considering this, the lead could be shortened and the details regarding her titles and names could be transformed into a section of its own.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content is overall relevant but could use some updating - especially in reference to missing citations.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The tone throughout most of the article is neutral but there were instances where that tone shifted with things such as "many believe". These should be omitted in favor of verifiable facts.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The links I attempted did work. The references provided were thorough and from reliable sources.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is fairly well-written. There were a few run-on sentences which could use some editing. Grammar errors were also few, and I did not take notice of any spelling errors.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

Images were well placed and included thorough captions.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The talk page seemed a little charged, but did have an apparent mediator to assist with a dispute. There was also helpful talk of fixing citations and correcting links.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The strengths for this article are its brevity - it is not overly laden with tedious amounts of information that readers would lose interest in. The article could use a more neutral tone as well as clearing up citations in order to improve its standing. Overall, it is a little underdeveloped; as mentioned earlier, the lead could use some separation from the titles and names in it and it would also benefit from perhaps a little more information from the citations to help provide more clarity for readers.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: