User:Mnakaji/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: Brescia Casket
 * The Brescia Casket article appears to be a well-written one. This will be useful for analysis, as that thought may turn out to be faulty.

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
Yes, the article gives a basic description on the use of the Casket, when it was made, as well as its current location.The opening paragraph features a fine description, and briefly describes what will be discussed in the article. Among these points: the decoration of the box. However, there is a discrepancy with what is to be discussed regarding "comparisons." The "comparison" section appears in the table of contents, but is not alluded to in the Lead. As stated above, there is a lack of information, not an overabundance of information. I believe the Lead to be concise, as everything necessary is there, save for the one flaw. The Lead sets the tone of the article, notes what will be discussed, and mentions the significance of the Brescia Casket for modern scholars.

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 content is overall relevant to the topic. I have no issues with the way it is presented, as it is done well. The authors provide a description of the Casket, as well as theories that are associated with them. What I appreciate most is the fact that the authors have provided images of the Casket's scenes, and have included graphs that name the people in the scene.

Overall, the content could use some updating. The newest article is a book from 2012. Save for a handful of other 2000's sources, the majority of sources hail from the mid-to-late 20th Century. This isn't necessarily a negative, but it would have been nice to see more modern sources. As a result, the previous authors directly state that many of the theories surrounding the Brescia Casket were made in the 1980's, with some modern ones in 2004. No new theories have been stated on the page.

There isn't necessarily information that doesn't belong, though I would question the "comparisons" section, where the Brescia Casket is briefly compared to the Pola Casket. This piece is written well, however, I do question why it was included.

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 favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral, and doesn't appear to be biased towards an opinion. As such, it simply reads like an encyclopedia.

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 facts in the article are adequately supported by sources, which come from reputable universities and institutions. There is an array of diverse sources, some regarding the background of the Casket, others noting the use of the Casket, and university sources that present the theories as to what the Casket's images mean. With that being said, the sources are not current. No source hails after 2012. Many are from the 20th Century, with some of these sources being used for the theories. As for the links, they do work, and take the reader to the site where they are from.

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
As stated above, the article is very well written and easy to read. I could not find any direct spelling or grammatical errors. The only "issue" I found is the "comparisons" section which I still question its relevance.

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
The Brescia Casket article makes great use of images. There are plenty of images covering all parts of the Casket, which is helpful for the viewer. What I appreciate the most about this section is the comparison of the images to the iconography in them. Previous authors have a t-chart, with the images on the left side and charts noting who's in the image to the right. This allows the viewer to quickly discern who is in each scene.

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 a handful of authors simply stating what they have added. One person added 3-D images of the Brescia Casket, while another inquired as to whether the Casket has been carbon dated. The biggest contributor noted the changes he made, as well as urging others to continue to test the links. It is part of the WikiProject Visual Arts effort, and is rated a C.

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
The Brescia Casket has been rated a C, and was given a grade of low importance on Wikipedia's importance scale. I believe the article to be excellent. It is unbiased, and provides a clear definition of what is being discussed. The picture iconography chart was also a good visual for people unfamiliar with the topic. I personally would remove the "comparisons" section, though I suppose that this provides something else for people to read should they want to learn more. I am of the opinion that the article is well-developed, though I would like future contributors to add recent sources.

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: