User:Mocseny3/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Daedalus

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it pertains to my course and I have always taken interest in the myth of Icarus and Daedalus. The article matters because it describes a key Greek mythological figure. My preliminary impression of this article is that it is mostly sound, with a reasonable amount of information, but could use revisions.

Evaluate the article
Overall, the lead section is straightforward, but while a notice at the top of the page specifies that this article is about a mythological character, the lead itself speaks about him as if he were a real person.

Most of the article's content seems relevant to the topic and up to date. Content beneath the "Inventor, architect, artist" header seems a bit meandering. It is unclear what the immediate point of this section is. It may benefit from reorganization or a clearer title. Information about Daedalus's nephew and his relationship to the partridge is also unclear.

Regarding tone and balance, the article maintains neutrality. It has no position and aims to inform.

Sources are somewhat varied and all academic. Most, however, seem to be older and rooted in original literature of ancient Greece. More contemporary sources might benefit the page.

While the writing of this article makes sense, some contractions are used, which is unprofessional in academic writing. Many sentences could be revised to flow better.

Images used are appropriate and cited. They all pertain to the topic. They are well-captioned. Images under "Later depictions in art and literature" seem to be laid out unappealingly depending on how much the browser window is enlarged, but this may not be an issue for other users.

Talk page discussion is on-topic, but not all of the discussions are signed and most posts are years old. The article is part of WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, and WikiProject Mythology. I do not see a rating for this article.

Overall, the article has strengths in organization and much of its content. It could, however, be updated with better clarity and organization. The article could be more developed and polished with revision.