User:Megg jones/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)
 * Conservation and Restoration of Ancient Greek Pottery // Conservation and restoration of ancient Greek pottery
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I have a personal interest in the field of restoration of ancient pieces of art and historical objects.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * It doesn't necessarily introduce the topic; it gives a link to the broader topic of ceramics that it falls under.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * no, it mainly just talks about the different types of professionals working in the field.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is too short, and doesn't really summarize the article itself.

Lead evaluation
I would add a basic outline of the article itself, and a section of the article about professionals in the field that is brought up in the first couple of sentences, and not talked about again.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it is very relevant
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Most of the sources are from the 80's, but the latest source is 2013.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I would say there are a few topics introduced that aren't actually discussed at all.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no not necessarily.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes, a lot of history of the field is discussed, but the modern techniques could be represented a lot more.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall tone is very neutral, and purely factual with evidence.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * no, there are a lot of sources missing
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I think that there could be a lot more sources based on the information provided
 * Are the sources current?
 * most of the sources are from 1980's, and only a few are from 2011, and 2013, so there is a wide range of dates, but there could be more modern sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Sources and references evaluation
I think that there could be a lot more sources in quantity as well as quality; more close to the current time period.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes it is very easy to read and concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I didn't see any spelling errors, but the grammar and punctuation could use a few proofreads.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I think that the organization is pretty well thought out.

Organization evaluation
Overall good organization, with good headers and an outline, just has some lacking information underneath each headline.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * I don't really like how the images are organized

Images and media evaluation
I think that there could be a lot more images in this article that include the actual process of the restoration, and some of the techniques and methods that are being described in the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The few comments on the talk page discuss the presence of a good outline, but encourage the editor to try to include and do some research about more foreign techniques of restoration, and include a larger variety of sources.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated C-class, and is not part of any WikiProjects, but is a part of multiple school assignments.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't discussed much about the actual restoration and conservation techniques in this class.

Talk page evaluation
It looks like just a few students are using this page, and not much else is going on. The Wikipedia editors encourage the writer to include a wider variety of sources and information, but the overall outline of the page is good.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The overall status is not horrible, but there definitely could be a lot of improvements.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Good base outline for the topic, and clear concise information.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * overall more information, and a wider variety of sources and citations as well as more detailed images.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would assess this article as underdeveloped. It's is not poorly done at all, but it could some more information overall.

Overall evaluation
Overall I think that this article has great potential, and can easily be improved upon because of a good outline, and basic information.

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: