User:ProfessorBrian22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Maat - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Maat is a fascinating character who has long been suppressed by patriarchal rhetorical practices. I want to research this topic more to add to my own pedagogical prowess and efficacy.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I think the opening sentence is concise and effectively defines the character of Maat; it's a direct and easy definition to comprehend the concept of Maat.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it does.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No, everything mentioned in the Lead is covered in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Not at all - perfectly balanced.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the author uses a balance between older articles and more current articles to present Maat.
 * Is the content up-to-date? I honestly do not know...I do not see a publication date as I would on a published article from a traditional source.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Actually, I am surprised there is not more reference to Maat's influence on rhetorical practices. I think Carol Lipson's article from Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks (which is mentioned) should be included in this article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This is where the article falls short. It could easily deal with the suppressed voice of the female in ancient Egypt that still occurs in today's rhetorical arenas.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. The writer does an excellent job presenting Maat objectively, not exercising any particular persuasive agenda.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Again, I hardly see any reference to rhetorical practices, which is highly relevant to the topic of Maat.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? I do not see any fringe viewpoints discussed or represented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. It keeps an academic and unbiased tone throughout the article.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Most date from 1990 and later; there are quite a few from the 70', which are probably still relevant since we are talking about an ancient topic.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I would like to see more author diversity. I do not see a single female author, which I think is a problem dealing with a female entity.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Yes, as I mentioned earlier, Carol Lipson should be added, which would cover the female voice that I mentioned in the preceding question.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The internal works function perfectly as do the external ones.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is extremely easy to read and presents some incredible information about Maat.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I currently see.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is very well organized and easy to navigate.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the author provides beautiful and clear images of Maat.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I am not sure.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The first three visuals are the perfect size (large enough to view, but not too large); the Book of the Dead image should be enlarged for easier viewing.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? I was actually surprised by the contentious tone of the author when he responds to another critic's concern about copyright infringement. He responds, "Fine, whatever, revert it." I was a bit caught off guard.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as "C-Class" (?) and High, so apparently it is high quality.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We looked at Maat from a rhetorical point of view; this article specifically examines the historical aspects of Maat.

Overall impressions
'''Dr. Vetter: thank you for making the suggestion to compare this article to the Isis article, which is much more developed. Wow! First off, it has a plethora of references that cover a large and diverse spectrum of authors. The article also discussed cultural influences that Isis had (such as Christianity); the Maat article feel short on this point. Also, I think the Isis article is more effectively laid out with images placed on both sides of the page, which created a more balanced presentation.'''
 * What is the article's overall status? I think the article is well constructed and well presented, but does need some work based upon what I have learned about the rhetorical nature of Maat.
 * What are the article's strengths? Great visual representation. In-depth explanation of the origin and cultural implications of Maat.
 * How can the article be improved? As I stated earlier, add Lipson's article as well as other rhetorical experts (especially women) who discuss Maat. Also, could audio clips be added to represent the physical pronunciation as well as the visual representation of those pronunciations?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The aspects that the article covers with regard to Maat are excellent; however, there are many aspects that the article fails to cover with regard to rhetoric.

'''[Side note: I hope this evaluation is much better, Dr. Vetter. Also, could I choose this article to work on this semester. I think I can effectively add the components that are missing in this article. See you in class on Wednesday!]'''

Comments from Dr. V
Good start on this, but I need you to be MORE CRITICAL and follow through on more of the questions provided by Wiki Ed so that you can begin to find some faults, gaps, errors, and other areas for improvement in the page. Remember that you can check out the Talk page to get some hints for where the article could be improved. Another way to brainstorm improvement is to look at a Wikipedia article on a similar topic that is highly rated (A or Featured Article status). How is that article different from Maat (which is rated C-Class)? Please do a comparison of Maat with Isis. How is Isis developed in a way that Maat is not? THEN, update this page with some specific areas of improvement for Maat. Thanks, Dr. Vetter (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Second round of Comments from Dr. V
Hello

Thank you for taking this more critical look at the article. Yes you may work on this article for our Wikipedia project. I think you've already listed a number of areas of improvement. As we discussed in class, I think you could totally create a new section to more directly represent Maat as rhetoric.

As for the sound/pronunciations idea, I believe you would need to upload your own audio files to be able to use that in the article. I will check on this and get back to you about it.

There are a few other students interested in working on this article, so I would suggest that you all have a common sandbox page to draft your additions. Please do that here: User:Sashaalexa/Maat

DarthVetter (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Response to Second Round - Thank you, DarthVetter (awesome name, by the way!). I am actually excited to move forward in this endeavor. I will make sure to add some outstanding additions to the MAAT!