User:Rmac5/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) Temple of Janus (Roman Forum)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This is the article I plan on working on for the project.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
It includes a good basic description of the Temple of Janus, and is done concisely. It doesn't really include and description of the different sections of the article.



Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant, but is missing almost any mention construction or architecture of the building itself. It also looks like there could be more up-to-date information added, as there have been many articles written about the temple in recent years that have not been used to create the page.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
There isn't any controversial information presented in the article as far as I can see.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Everything is cited for the most part, there is one paragraph with a "citation needed" tag though. There are many more available sources which could have been used, and definitely some more current information, there are a few articles from the past 10-15 years that were not used on this page.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The lead could definitely be written better, there is missing information and some redundant information. The sections are good, they are just not balanced in terms of amount of content.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The existing images are ok (though they are basically the same), but it needs a picture of the modern ruins, and maybe a digital reconstruction as well. One of the captions is good but the other needs some more detail. They do adhere to the copyright regulations as they are pictures of ancient coins.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The last conversation was in 2014, and it was to merge the page about the Gates of Janus with this one. There was only one other comment concerning accuracy of information from 2007. It is rated as "Low Importance" and "Start Class" and is part of the Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome. The discussion is very similar to what we talked about in class, it is just very short.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article is definitely underdeveloped. It has good information on the historical accounts of the actual functioning of the temple, though some more detail can be added. I also want to improve the information on the building itself, as that is virtually non-existent on the page. Information on the various reconstructions of the temple is also missing(who, what, when, why?), so I want to add that too.

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: