User:Poglet0027/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Pekmez

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate the Pekmez article because it is an ingredient used in Middle Eastern cuisine that I have not come across before and I was curious to learn more about its history and use. After reading the article, I noticed some areas in which the writing quality/organization could be improved. The sections are also quite short, suggesting that there may be information missing/opportunities to expand it (currently classified as a 'stub').

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * The introductory sentence outlines the Pekmez production process rather than just a basic definition/context. Almost all of the information in this section is not present elsewhere in the article and it also lacks a brief description of the major sections.
 * While the lead section is concise, it does not provide a clear or useful overview of Pekmez and the article's content. The facts included seem to be randomly selected and illogically organized.

Content


 * The article has three relatively short sections that are a similar length - 'Etymology', 'History' and 'Regional variants'. While these are all relevant to the topic, it would be beneficial to add other sections, such as Culinary Uses, Production and Nutrition.
 * Additionally, there appears to be information missing in the existing sections. For example, the history of Pekmez beyond the 'classical period' is not mentioned and the current description provides very limited detail.
 * There is no obvious 'out-of-date' information or equity gaps. However, little reference is made to Pekmez's use and production in the modern era.
 * Overall, all the content included belongs in the article but further elaboration and synthesis are required to represent the topic more holistically.

Tone and Balance


 * The article's tone is neutral. The authors have described Pekmez variants in different regions and do not present any of these as superior. No heavily biased claims are made and the article is not trying to persuade the reader in favor of a particular position.

Sources and References


 * There are only four references listed - 2 websites, a book and a dictionary - and one of the links does not work. I was unable to verify whether the sources support all the claims in the article because some were either inaccessible (i.e., only available in physical formats or for purchase) or not published in English.
 * An external link to the image's source on Wikimedia Commons has been included as well as a 'Further Reading' recommendation on the Turkish Ministry of Agriculture's website. This link is functional and reroutes to what seems to be an official archive page but I was skeptical of its format and unable to read its content in Turkish.
 * The sources appear to be neutral but do not represent a diverse array of authors and publications (being so few in number). Consequently, large parts of the article come from a single source and there is little evidence of synthesis.
 * There are several facts that are not cited, particularly in the lead and 'Regional variants' sections. Other users have also noted areas in which either a citation or clarification is needed.
 * Translations of certain ingredient names have been provided, presumably from the cited dictionary, but this is not indicated anywhere in the article.
 * A search on Google Scholar returned many peer-reviewed articles about Pekmez published in food science, processing and technology journals that do not feature on this Wikipedia page and commercial Pekmez products are also sold on Amazon. Incorporating the content of these sources would improve the usefulness of the Pekmez article for future readers.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * The article has been organized into relevant sections and the information in each relates to its sub-topic. However, some facts are uncategorized (i.e., in the lead section).
 * The article uses simple language but the tone could be more professional and clear in many instances. For example, phrases such as 'goes back to the classical period' are extremely vague. In the lead and 'History' sections, seemingly unrelated facts are presented adjacently with no transitions or connecting statements.
 * There is also evidence of careless formatting (e.g., in the 'Regional variants' section, the spacing between paragraphs is inconsistent). Additionally, in the 'Etymology' section, the structure and grammar of both sentences could be improved.
 * In some ways, the article is too concise as important contextual information has been omitted and this hinders the reader's understanding of the content. One cannot know for certain why mulberry trees grown for silkworms relate to Pekmez (see the 'History' section) or what sugar beet, figs, mulberry and juniper berries are used for in Turkey (see the 'Regional variants' section).

Images and Media


 * There is a single image on the page. Its caption provides a sufficiently detailed description of the Pekmez syrup featured and an external link to its Wikimedia Commons source is listed.
 * The article could be enhanced through more images featuring Pekmez's primary ingredients, where it is used/grown and dishes that incorporate it. Visual representations of any artistic depictions or commercial product offerings would also be worthwhile additions.

Talk Page Discussion


 * The article is of interest to three WikiProjects - WikiProject Turkey, WikiProject Breakfast, and WikiProject Food and drink - and it has been identified as the subject of our Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment from January to April 2022.
 * In 2006, someone questioned whether Pekmez was an appropriate topic for an encyclopedic article, and the majority of the talk page discussion focuses on formal requests to merge the Pekmez page with other articles. One user notes that Pekmez simply describes a type of grape syrup that resembles variations in other regions and therefore should be classified alongside them. There appears to be consensus among contributors on this stance although no merger has taken place (since the discussion in 2016-17). The final part of the talk page is about the modification of external links in 2018. A user describes the changes they have made and requests for others to review them.
 * In contrast to class discussions about improving existing or writing new Wikipedia articles, this talk page highlights the need to consider how article topics relate to each other. It is important to determine whether there is sufficient information to justify separate pages or if combining everything into a single article would be more appropriate. Addressing these issues will ensure that all the information on a given topic is as easily accessible as possible and minimize redundancy on the Wikipedia platform.

Overall Impressions


 * The article's 'stub' classification is appropriate as it seems to be both poorly developed and underdeveloped. While the current organizational structure provides a useful starting point, more detailed content from varied sources and additional sections are required to present the Pekmez topic more holistically. Additionally, the overall writing quality, formatting and referencing could be greatly improved.