User:Njacobs9/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The Orator

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because its subject is a statue we discussed in class that I already have some context for so can better evaluate the strength and accuracy of the Wikipedia page. This statue holds importance due to its exemplifying the influence of Roman, Greek, and Etruscan styles on Italian art in this time period, and its use of verism, a signifying aspect of Roman art and politics. My preliminary impression is that it contains a lot of relevant information, and touches on basically all the notable aspects of this particular statue, specifically its origin, its physical qualities, and its purpose. However, parts of it did seem a little lacking in information and not very in depth, which may be due to a lack of knowledge about the concrete origin and purpose of the statue, but could also display some room for improvement and additional information, particularly about its grounding.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead of the article has some serious flaws, mostly in that its not a summarization of the information in the article, but a separate summation of information about the statue's assumed origin and grounding, as well as its various names and current location. The information presented here seems relevant and useful, though conveys a sense of uncertainty, and could likely be expanded upon if there were a section of the article specifically devoted to grounding.

The content of the article seems up to date and accurate, and conveys that while there's some physical aspects to the statue we can definitively comment on, there are various theories about its purpose that are still debated amongst historians, and the article seems to get across each of these differing theories and provide an explanation for why each one has been put forth. Each section of the article is quite brief, however, and there is definitely room for potential expansion and more in depth discussions. There is also not much discussion of its political relevance, or its demonstration of particular Roman art aesthetics, most notably missing here is any mention of its verism.

The article has an appropriate tone and presents its information objectively, not seeming to favor one of the multiple theories about its purpose and origin over another, but simply presenting them both as valid possibilities.

The article features a good quality image of the entire sculpture, as well as another section with close up, better quality images of the different parts of the sculpture touched on in the content of the article, which works in how the media relevant to each major section of the written article is available for convenient viewing, making for a cohesive and functional article.

Looking at the talk page, it appears the article is apart of the WikiProject Sculpture, which aims to improve coverage of sculptures in general, as well as WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, amongst which it has been graded a C for quality and low on the project's importance scale. Besides this, there appears to be no continued conversation or edits beyond its initial creation between August 2017 and January 2018.

Overall, I believe the C-class quality scale makes sense for this article, as it has a lot of relevant and important information, but could definitely be more fleshed out and complete. Its introduction could be rewritten to be more concise and more a summary of all the information in the article, and a separate section could be added specifically for the information related to the statue's grounding and origin.