User:Roserey/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Ara Pacis)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I am a fan of early history. To go back and look at what our ancestors or us humans did to celebrate or even cultivate with the technology throughout history is important. We learn religious beliefs, early human civilization system and so much more. My first impression with only skimming through the article was that I will be have a fountain of information about the subject.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The introductory of the sentence clearly states the subject matter very quickly from who, what, and when the altar was build in just the first sentence. The article goes into depth into where it was found but does not go into depth about it later in the section. All information from the lead is present in the article itself and goes into further detail about them. The lead is very concise with only a few sentences talking about the alter and where is it from and has relevance to the topic. The content is up to date with many sources pulled from the early 2000s. Further more all content is relevant to the subject and and not once did it steer into another direction. The article a full of information and is never biased but states facts. Each section from the significance to the structure provide a detail of the meaning the art on each side of the alter. All facts (except a handful) have been backed up by a reliable source of information only one of the links did not work which could indicate that fact is not correct. Each source goes into greater depth off the subject of the alter and the correlation it has to it. The images provided by the article enhance it a great deal. They give you a visual in what the writer is describing so the reader can gain a better understanding into what matter the article is diving into and the reasoning behind their explanation. The images are well captioned, titled, and cited correctly. This article is rated as a B and is a high imnportance, it is also part of three wiki projects Architecture, Rome, and classical Greece and Rome. Many sources are reliable and come from peer reviewed articles or books. However some do come from News website which I would be weary of. The article can be improved more on the structure in which it is now. It seems to be cluttered with information in many of the sections. Combining a section or two would make this article flow a bit better and detailing more which sections we are talking about. Overall this article is well developed because of the great sources, links, structure, and information.