User:SPhilSmit/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


 * Sack of Rome (410)
 * I have chosen to evaluate the article the Sack of Rome (410) as I find the topic fascinating. I have also chosen to evaluate this article as it has an active talk page in which people have corrected and edited the page. This has lead to changes being made. During my training with wikipedia I have learned that group    editing and collaboration is the purpose of wikipedia and I would like to evaluate the effect this collaboration has had on the quality of the article..

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * oes 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
The article, The Sack of Rome (410) begins with a clear and concise introductory paragraph. It states the discussion of the article, the Sack of Rome, and the date it occurred. The introductory sentence is followed by a brief introduction to what the Sack of Rome was gave some historical contexts into the effects of the battle. The article does not briefly explain the major sections of the article. The lead to this article does discuss information that is not present in the article as I discussed the first time Rome was Sacked by the Gauls in 390 BCE. The invasion by the Gauls was not discussed anywhere else in this article. The lead is concise and does not give too much information.

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 of the article was relevant to the topic, however the focus and great detail to the leading up to the first siege of the sack of Rome was a bit cluttered with information which distracted from the actual discussion of the Sack of Rome and its impact. The content of this article looks to be up to date with many of its sources coming from the early 2000s and late 1990s. This article was well researched and only had relevant information. This may have been a result of its active talk page and community collaborative editing.

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
This article seems fairly neutral and not trying to persuade the readers.

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
Most of the article’s facts were backed up by the reliable sources. This is likely a result of the work done on them by the wiki community. The talk page had two people discussing how they were going to update and edit the sources. Most of the sources are from the early 2000s and late 1990s. The links to the sources work.

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
This article is not well organized. As discussed before, the beginning of the article is hard to follow as it tries to cover too many topics in one section. The use of sub-section/headers would have helped organize this page. This lack of organization could be why this article is only a C rating when it has such a high completion rate.

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
There are not many images attached to this article. The images that were attached did not seem to enhance my understanding of the topic. In addition, there was a comment on the talk page about the accuracy of one of the maps attached to the page. This comment was never followed up with so it is unknown if action was taken.

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 talk page was very active. Many people criticized different section and went in a edited the article. People also left comments and suggestions for the author. The talk page was focused to the Sack of Rome and was civil.

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
This article was filled with wonderful sources and descriptive accounts of the sack of Rome. This article can be improved by having sub-sections/headers and a more organized structure. I think this page is a great example of the wiki-community coming together to make an article better.

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: