User:MikeEK1998/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Classics

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose Classics because the article is about the topic of study I have chosen as my major for University, with the added bonus of it being an interesting sounding article.

The article matters because the Classics matter. The classics teaches us about the ancient Greek and Roman societies and this is important because these societies formed the basis of western civilization and in turn shaped the modern world.

My initial impression of the article was that it was well-written and easy to read, as it was laid out in a well structured way. I didn't find it confusing and was intrigued by what I read. My only major issue was the lack of detail in certain areas of the article.

Evaluate the article
Classics was an enjoyable article covering one of the most fascinating periods of history and topics of study. With that said, I feel in some sections there was a lack of detail which took away from the quality of the article. Here are some suggestions I have:

-       Lead Section:

o   The lead section of the article is by far the weakest part of the article.

o   It does include a concise and clear introductory sentence, but doesn’t include the most detailed description of what will be included in the article itself. It only mentions a few of the sub sections that would be covered.

-       Content:

o   While all of the article’s content is relevant, the majority of it is based on references only as recent as 2010, with a couple of sources from 2016. While this is understandable as the classics is an older topic of study, it could be useful to have some more references from the past ten years to provide a more recent outlook.

o   My major gripe with this article is in many ways that certain pieces of content are missing such as 1) when speaking on the history of Classics, there is a lack of discussion concerning its study in North America. Most of the details in the article refer to how/where it is taught in Europe, with an emphasis on the United Kingdom, and because of this it includes very little mention of how it is taught in North America. And 2) in the section Classical Rome, under the subsection History, the history of ancient Rome is cut off with the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC. This seems too early of a cut off to truly cover the extent of Ancient Rome. I feel it should be extended to include the end of the Roman Republic with mention of Julius Caesar for instance, and the beginnings of the Roman Empire with Augustus, et al.

-       Tone and Balance:

o   The article is written from a neutral point of view, but as mentioned with content, the viewpoints from North America appear underrepresented. And this appears to be the direct result of overrepresentation of the United Kingdom’s viewpoint on teaching the Classics.

-       Sources and References:

o   The article is backed up by an extensive and thorough catalogue of sources, that all appear to be peer-reviewed articles or book selections.

o   As mentioned earlier there is a lack of sources from the past decade and it would be nice to see this included to give readers an up to date perspective on Classics.

-       Organization and writing quality:

o   The article is well written, organized and concise. Most of the points throughout are effectively and thoroughly detailed, but as I've mentioned this area can be improved.

-       Images and Media:

o   While the images used are well-captioned, there is a lack of images for an article of this size. Another issue is that most images are busts of famous figures and nothing much else.

o   An improvement to this would be the addition of images such as pieces of art (paintings, statues, etc.) for the art history section or a depiction of a historical figure or event for the history section.

-       Talk page discussion:

o   As it’s described over the last fifteen years on the talk page, it appears that what was once a messy article has been edited and cleaned up extensively to form the current article we see today. Of course, as I’ve mentioned above, there are still some areas where improvement can be seen.

o   The article is listed as level-5 vital and B-Class. It also is a part of different WikiProjects such as Classical Greece and Rome; Greece; Latin; and Philosophy/Literature/Ancient. With all of these it is rated either Top-importance or High-importance.

-       Overall impressions:

o   Overall I would consider this article to be near-complete and very close to being a well put together and finished product. Once the above suggestions are added I would consider Classics to be a concise, detailed, and extensively written article.

o   The articles strengths are in the number of sections and subsections it provides, and building upon this it is of importance that when detail is given, it is thoroughly and effectively given, which strengthens this articles quality. In the section History for instance it provides for the most part a structured and easy to follow timeline of the history of the study of Classics. Each of the following sections are again structured well and it provides for a quick and interesting read. It shows how Classics is a detailed and thorough area of study looking at all aspects of the ancient Greek and Roman worlds.

o   Overall the article can be improved with a clearer introduction that more effectively sets up the content in the sections. And even though details are its biggest strength, this article also suffers from a lack of details in the following areas, as already mentioned above: the study of Classics in North America and the history of Rome following the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC. Once detail is added to these sections I see nothing holding back this article from being a concise, structured, and well put together piece of work.