User:PalmyranRealness/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Dura-Europos synagogue

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the synagogue because it was evaluated as a "stub" and I wanted to see what a stub might look like. It's also one of the more historically significant sites at Dura, so one would expect it to be a pretty well written article. I didn't think it was that bad upon a quick reading, although I was surprised that the preliminary information on Dura wasn't cited in the header section..

Evaluate the article
The lead section is well written, although maybe the context of Dura-Europos as a whole doesn't belong in the overview and instead in its own section. The main issue with it is, as stated before, its lack of in-text citation. The content seems to all be relevant. I believe that more information on the excavation/discovery process would help to add depth to the article. Also missing, in my view, is a discussion of the architectural layout of the synagogue, its place in relation to other buildings in Dura-Europos, and other preserved artistic elements such as the painted tiles. The author definitely does not believe that the site had a wider influence on later Jewish and Christian iconography, and the text mirrors this belief, however from what they cite this does seem to be the contemporary academic consensus.

The sources they use, and the offerings in the Further Reading, are all legitimate, and the author is clearly informed. That being said, I think that some sections need a more explicit sourcing, such as the second paragraph of "Cultural context" (which scholars?), the lead section of "Wall-paintings", and the heading summarizing Dura-Europos' history. The writing style and system of organization is a little unorthodox, but largely good. There's a few grammatical errors "Scholars cannot agree on the subjects of some scenes, because of damage, or the lack of comparative examples" and a weirdly voiced sentences "The local Jewish population did not mind illustrating the Tabernacle based on Roman civil architecture for unknown reasons". The overall organization of the page is lopsided, with lots text and subheadings devoted to the wall-paintings, and then the following headings are a bit undeveloped (The cultural context in "Cultural context and purpose of murals" especially). I think with a reformatting of the sections and a little more information provided this would be fine.

The images included are helpful and illustrative. Almost all are within public domain, if not a user's own photography, so there's no issues with copyright violation to my knowledge.

The talk page is pretty bare, and lots of different Wikipedia projects have labeled it as a stub, with varying degrees of priority.

I think overall this is not as awful as I expected a "stub" rated article to be. It is a good starting point, albeit with an obvious coverage bias for the wall paintings of the synagogue. I think that with more thorough citation and attention paid to the architecture and functions of the synagogue, as well as its excavation and preservation histories, this will be a fleshed out and helpful article. I have a little nugget of skepticism as to whether there is as much academic consensus as the tone of the article implies, but I still think is a step beyond an average "stub" article in completeness. I feel that it is more likely a Start, if not a C class article.