User:Of Noble Berth/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: (link)
 * Roman Technology: Roman technology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * The article is assessed as a C-Class article and it has been flagged as not reflecting the encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia.
 * The article is assessed as a C-Class article and it has been flagged as not reflecting the encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead has an introductory sentence that is relevant to the topic, however, it makes the assumption that the technology of Rome was the reason for Rome's economic and militaristic expansion without providing evidence or a source. Also, the introductory sentence has some grammatical issues which keeps it from being completely clear.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * After the introductory sentence, the Lead takes a tangent away from the relevant information in the article. The brief description focuses on information about ancient Roman technology being lost to time periods after the fall of the empire. It does not outline the topics of the article or the articles major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The article includes information about the knowledge of Roman technology being lost to other time periods in history. This information does not appear else where in the article. Most of the Lead is comprised of Roman technology in other time periods while only slightly referring to the information laid out in the article, when it references civil engineering and construction materials.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is not overly detailed but it is also not concise either. It refers to a mechanical reaper near the end of the Lead. No information is provided on what kind of technology this mechanical reaper is only that "it was not improved upon until the nineteenth century. Reference to the mechanical reaper does not appear in the article again.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is not overly detailed but it is also not concise either. It refers to a mechanical reaper near the end of the Lead. No information is provided on what kind of technology this mechanical reaper is only that "it was not improved upon until the nineteenth century. Reference to the mechanical reaper does not appear in the article again.
 * The lead is not overly detailed but it is also not concise either. It refers to a mechanical reaper near the end of the Lead. No information is provided on what kind of technology this mechanical reaper is only that "it was not improved upon until the nineteenth century. Reference to the mechanical reaper does not appear in the article again.

Lead evaluation
The Lead of the article makes note of the incredible technological feats of ancient Rome, however, it fails to lay out the major sections in the article. The lead starts strong by trying to define Roman technology but loses focus quickly by referring to other time periods, in an attempt to contextualize the significance of Roman technology to history following antiquity. The lack of focus on the contexts of the article and the argumentative tone of the language, leaves the Lead in a weakened state.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Most of the article's content is relevant to the topic. The 'Craft basis' section and the 'energy constraint' section feel awkward. They are either out of place in the article and need to be reordered closer to the end of the article, or they need to be rewritten to in a fashion more specific to the topic of the article.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content of the article appears to be up to date. The majority of the referenced content has been gathered from the late decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content that is provided belongs or can be made to belong in the article. The article does seem to be missing content. For a subject as broad as Roman Technology, the amount of information provided does feel lacking. The article provides a list of various ancient Roman technologies which could be covered in more depth within the article.

Content evaluation
Overall the content of the article is relevant and informative to the topic. More information on the topic could be added to the article to provide a greater overview of the topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article makes two big claims within the Lead without providing sources to back up the position. One is that Roman technology "made possible the expansion of the economy and military of ancient Rome." The other is that the "Roman Empire was one of the most technologically advanced civilizations of antiquity." These unsupported positions keep the article from being neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article does not appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position; it just fails to provided properly sourced positions. Without properly sourced positions, the positions the article does take appear to that of the author(s).
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The section on 'energy constraints' appears to provide a theory of technological development. It only provides one source and hence, leaves out other theories for technological development.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The positions laid out in the article are not strong enough to persuade the reader. The positions lack detail and sources.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article starts out presumptuous but as it goes on to describe the various technologies of Rome it travels closer to a neutral position. The article needs to provide more depth on theories of technological development in order to strike a balance between theories.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not all the facts are backed up by a secondary source. A few sections, such as 'Craft basis,' is completely without sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources provided are unique in their extent. There is a variety of sources, with the majority coming from an academic background.
 * Are the sources current?
 * There are a few sources from the second decade of the 21st century. The majority of the sources come from the 1990s and 2000s.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links are in proper working order.

Sources and references evaluation
The article is filled with many unique sources however, more up to date sources could be provided. The article also needs more of its facts sourced or else it should remove the content which is not sourced.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article stumbles in its clarity in certain areas, particularly in the Lead, as well as the energy constraints and craft basis sections. These sections are not clear in how they relate to the topic although they do contain relevant information to the topic, the sections could be more specific.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The article contains minor grammatical errors which if corrected could add to the clarity of the article. The article appears to have no spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article needs to be reorganized. The organization of the article is one of its weakest factors. It starts with two awkward sections that make the reader question their relevance to the article. The 'energy constraints' and the craft basis' sections should probably be rewritten and moved closer to the end of the article. The article may be better served if it starts with an overview of the types of Roman technology or the origin of Roman technology. The rest of the sections are well organized but the article needs more content to fully flesh out the topic.

Organization evaluation
The organization of the article does it no favors. The Lead and following two sections are awkward, which turn the reader off from the subject. The subsequent sections are well-written but need more content for to feel fully fleshed out.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The photos included in the article are excellent visual aids for the understanding of the types of technology being talked about. Being that the article is about technology, photos of blueprints would be useful to the understanding of the mechanics for some of the technology being described.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Most of the images are captioned well, however, 'time of Construction' dates are on the minimum side.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * All the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations as they are either from the public domain, or are free to share and adapt in the creative commons.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * All of the images are on the right side of the page. The article would be more engaging if it had some photo's on the left side of the page embedded within the text.

Images and media evaluation
The images of the article adhere to Wikipedia's standards and are relevant to the topics being discussed. The photos would be improved if they provided more details in the description and if they are laid out in a more visually pleasing way upon the page. Overall the images support the content of the article by providing visual context for the technology being described.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is discussion on how to name the article, as well as talk about adding new sections. The talk page also discusses issues with the sources of previously published sections.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as C-Class. It is apart of the WikiProject Technology as well as the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not really addressed the topic of Roman Technology in class.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page addresses some of the issues with the article but no one has contributed to the page since 2013. The article is rated C-class so it needs to be improved. Editors have seem to have lost interest in communicating about how to improve the article as all communication has ceased for roughly 7 years.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is an unreliable and incomplete source for information about Roman technology. The article needs to be developed further in order to provide a complete overview of the topic.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The topic of the article is interesting, the images for the article are informative and the article provides a diverse selection of sources.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The structure of the article needs to be re-worked in order to be more organized. Facts within the article need to be provided with sources to support their claims. The article also needs a lot more content so that the reader can form a complete picture of the topic.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is underdeveloped and needs a lot of work to become an effectively informative Wikipedia article.

Overall evaluation
The topic of Roman technology is quite interesting to study, however; the handling of the topic is fumbled in the Lead and the two subsequent sections. These sections need to be reworked with the goal of focusing on topic. The article provides informative information about civil and military technology. These sections are the heart of the article, more attention need to be payed to them in the introduction section in order to build a more connected article. Many facts in the article go un-sourced and appear to be the opinions of the author(s). These facts need to be remedy with sources or they need to be removed. Overall the article needs a lot of work to become an effective learning resource on the topic of Roman technology.

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: Talk:Roman technology