User:Ns.thot03/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: Roman funerary practices
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen to evaluate this article because it is one I am personally looking into editing for the project and I think thi swould help me gage the article and its complexity a little better to know where it may need work.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead does concisely state the describe the topic of the article. It also includes a list of the major sections that will be covered by the article. The article, however, talks about cremations and I. do not see that in the article. Likewise, I see topics in the article that are not included in the lead. It is slightly overly-detailed. I think it could be tailored to more accurately describe its layout.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

the last section is not exactly relevant to the article, as it talks about afterlife while the title specifically indicates to only the funerary practices specifically. The rest of the article, however, more directly relates to the topic. The article DOES address the gap between the wealthy and the poor in terms of burials and tombstones and how they were buried differently.


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article sounds neutral, and there seem to be no clear biases. While I do not think that the article necessarily is underrepresented, I think it could be interesting to add a section on the difference between females and males in terms of roman practices. It does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The article lacks proper citations. Most of the sources seem to be from books and press releases. A lot of them are also slightly outdated, and could use more relevant and up to date sources. I also think. a use of images or more primary sources could contribute well. The sources are contradictory to what the article says. They do not always include historically marginalized individuals. The links do work.


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

I do not like the flow of the article. It is disorganized and has no clear flow to it. It has grammatical errors. It is not reflective of the major topics.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The images do help understand the tombs and decorations that went with burials. The image captions could be more descriptive, as they can be unclear. They do adhere to the copyright regulations. I did not like the way they were laid out. It looked crowded.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * The talk page is in clear unison when they say the article is poorly written. They hope that it is rewritten. It is rated a B-class on wikipedia. It does not appear to be part of any wikiprojects (except ours!).


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall, it needs a lot of work. It is not reliable and should be rewritten in some places. The article has good information that needs to be reorganized and properly written and cited. It could use a better lead. It is underdeveloped.


 * 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?

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: