User:Phantom762/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ame-no-Uzume

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article because it is one of my chosen articles for future evaluation in my project. Furthermore, I made that choice because it was about a mythological god that I was interested in from their portrayal in media and their actual history and meaning in comparison.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

Despite the lead section providing a concise summary of the origins and status of the mythological god herself, it includes neither a hooking introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic nor a brief description of the article's significant sections. Furthermore, the article introduces information that needs to be more relevant in an introduction or expanded upon in the major points after the leading section.

Content:

Throughout the article, its content is relevant to the topic and relatively up-to-date, with the sources ranging from 2004 to 2020. With this, however, it does have content that may belong less with as little content as the article has, despite still being relevant.

Tone and Balance:

Within the entirety of the article, its position remains neutral and fair amongst other viewpoints that are also listed, including sections towards Uzume's similarities to other goddesses of different religions and mythology as being analogous to them.

Sources and References:

Nearly all the facts included within the article have reliable secondary sources to back them up, excluding one being in the leading section. These sources and references span many published texts from encyclopedias, verified books from reliable publications, and organization websites of the shrines and their historical importance. Furthermore, these sources are thorough and current on the topic they cover, ranging from 2004 to 2020 on Japanese mythology and the historical significance of their shrines. Moreover, the links provided work in supporting the claims made in the article and a better context of the particular information being used from a considerable pool.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The article's characteristics provide a clear, concise, and easy-to-read quality that makes it well-written. Moreover, this is because the article has no grammatical or spelling errors; it instead has an organization that breaks down the article into relative and well flowing sections of the topic's major points; Uzume's original mythology, her worship, and similarities to mythologies of other cultures in counterparts.

Images and Media:

The article does include images that enhance understanding of the topic, but there needs to be more to say so substantially. With this, most photos are well-captioned by describing the picture in a few words. Still, one needs captions and citation that adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, unlike the prior most. Despite the images being relevant to the article's major points, they are laid out unappealingly, with one of the images not fitting and ending up right next to the references section, suffering from spacing and minimal content in the article.

Talk page discussion:

In the talk page discussion, conversations mostly pertain to the embellishment of the original tale of Ame-no-Uzume and possible misunderstandings the actual article writer had made in documenting the story, with additional references supporting the change. Further, the article is part of a group of Wikiprojects on Japan: Mythology/Shinto, Mythology, Women's History, and Women in Religion, all in the same rating as the C-class from mid to low importance. As for the article itself, it is rated as C-quality and of mid-importance, according to the graph on the Mythology Wikiproject Assessment page.

Overall impressions:

Overall, the article does have a good status in the information that it does provide. Strengths of the article include its conciseness within the significant points of the topic and inclusion of other topics not only pertained to the topic's origins but also its similarity to other cultural representations and worship today. One of the different ways other editors could still improve the article is the addition of other significant points to talk about within the article to give more content and stretch out more information about the topic, providing more development. Additionally, the leading section may be improved by giving a general summary of the article rather than introducing information not expanded upon in the major points after it and moving such information to another significant point section. When assessing the article based on its traits that it has now, I would determine its completeness to be underdeveloped at a good early stage, greatly benefiting if there was more development in the content that it already has alongside its expansion to bring more information into light.