User:MiaSutton/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: 1728 in poetry
 * I came across this article during the Week 6 hyperlinking activity on OWL (Six Degrees of Wikipedia) and I thought it would be interesting to evaluate an article within a WikiProject. It not only has to function as an effective article in of itself, but also as a part of a whole, conforming to overarching format guidelines.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation

 * The lead section provides important information regarding the hyperlinks within the article, but includes nothing else. While the lead is concise, the reader would likely benefit from some description of the article. As an example, English poetry has a brief description of the article's scope, noting that it covers poetry from England rather than poetry written in the English language.
 * The lead section does not describe the article's major section but it does include a table of contents. It also includes a table with lists of years in poetry articles, which is helpful for navigating the collection of pages. Navigation would be made easier, though, with a more detailed lead section describing the context of the article( linking to the main page for years in poetry, for instance), as well as its structure.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic. It's also as up to date as an article on 1728 in poetry can be. There are some instances where additional detail seems unnecessary (such as the Jacob Taylor entry of Colonial America and the entry on the death of Esther Johnson). I think it seems out of place largely because of a lack of detail everywhere else. It's likely an issue of only having certain information available.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 favour of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral in tone and does not make any biased claims. The article does, however, focus very heavily on English poetry, especially within the United Kingdom, with only two entries from non-English countries (France and Swahili), while later year in poetry articles have a broader scope (2018 in poetry, for instance, separates its entries into works published in English and works published in other languages). This could be down to a bias in viewpoint or simply a lack of reliable/available sources for other languages and nations.

I don't think this article is necessarily biased in viewpoint, but it should specify its focus on English language poetry, or note that it needs to be expanded to include poetry in other languages. I think the lead section could be expanded to clarify its contents, while also directing readers to the links at the bottom of the article to poetry of other languages and cultures.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The reference section draws primarily on print sources (such as The Chronology of American Literature and The Concise Oxford Chronology of English Literature). They seem to be reliable and thorough sources from what I can tell, but I don't have access to any of them so it's hard to be certain.

There is only one online source, which isn't used as a reference in the body of the article. It has a functional link to "A Timeline of Poetry in English" posted by University of Toronto Libraries subpage Representative Poetry Online (RPO). It supports the information within the article but does not contain all the details used. It seems to be functioning as a supplementary material rather than source material, or as an online (and more accessible) source verifying the information within the article.

The reference section is fairly small, but seems proportionate to the amount of content within the article. I will note, though, that it might reflect bias (see above) in its focus on English language poetry.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is concise, clear, easy to read, and well-structured. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. On the Talk page for List of years in poetry, a user (no longer active) suggested a grammar fix in the lead section, where it states: "Nationality words link to information on the nation's poetry or literature (for instance, Irish or France). This user found it odd to use an identifier and a country name, but that seems to be the point to me (that way readers will know that both country names and identifiers will behave in the same way).

The events section is empty, but it seems to be in place for consistency with the other year in poetry articles. For instance, while 1720's "Events" section is also empty, 1738's contains a single event and more recent years in poetry would include more events. There are, however, inconsistencies with sections and organization between 1728 (and its surrounding articles) and more recent years in poetry articles. Looking at 2018 in poetry, for example, works published are divided into works published in English and in other languages, and then divided into countries. 2018 also includes additional sections: "Anniversaries," "Awards and honors by country," "Conferences by country," and dedicated subsections for countries' individual "Works published" subsections listing anthologies, criticism, scholarship, and biography specific to the nation. Given these differences, it might not be necessary to include an "Events" section where there are no events listed.

Where there is content, the article is well-organized. "Works published" (the most substantial section) is divided into three categories, which have entries organized alphabetically (ie. Joseph Addison before Thomas Cooke). Overall, the article is organized effectively, but the "Events" section should be revised (either removed or added to).

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
N/A, no images or media included 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?
 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
There are no conversations on the talk page of this article, but it is part of two Wikiprojects: Years and Poetry. The article is unrated in terms of quality and importance within the scope of WikiProject Years. Within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, it does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

The talk page for List of years in poetry is a space for discussion about anything related to the collection of articles. Here, user A Musing suggests adding introductory paragraphs for both individual years and century pages, having added one to the article on 10th century in poetry (and on 936 in poetry, but that was relocated, becoming a section within 930s in poetry). The introduction gives the context of the article within List of years in poetry and describes the role/purpose of the List of years in poetry and List of years in literature, while also giving advice for navigating the collection of articles.

This talk page also includes a to-do list, suggested resources for expansion, and debate on what is important enough for the "Events" sections.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
As mentioned above, the article is unrated in terms of quality and importance. The lack of discussion on the talk page makes it difficult to determine the status of the article. There is no specific mention of the article on either associated WikiProject page, or on the talk page of the list of years in poetry.

In terms of strengths, the article is well connected with related articles. The "See also" section, for instance, contains links to Poetry, List of years in poetry and in literature, 18th century in poetry and literature, Augustan poetry, and Scriblerus Club. At the bottom of the article, there are links to poetry of different cultures and languages, and lists of poets (organized by language, by nationality or culture, and by type). The body of the article also uses hyperlinks effectively to redirect readers to further detail on poets, their works, the occasional key term, and other years in poetry. The article is also strong in terms of its neutral tone and clear, concise writing. It presents relevant and accurate information without biased language and has a good ratio of content to proportions.

The article feels like it's lacking in terms of breadth, specifically concerning poetry written in languages other than English. It would be much improved by an expansion in terms of content. It could also benefit from a stronger lead section, with detail about the page itself, its context, and advice for navigating the series of years in poetry articles, as noted on the talk page for List of years in poetry. I also feel it's worth considering to what degree it needs to conform with the structure of other year in poetry articles, especially concerning the "Events" section.

I think this article appears initially to be largely well-developed, but is lacking in certain areas, specifically the "Events" section and the lack of content related to non-English poets and poetry.

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: