User:Sam Wege/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Antiquarian

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because we had talked about antiquarianism in class last week and its role in the development of archaeology and its potentially problematic continued presence today.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

While the lead section does well to lay out the contents in order that will be discussed in the article, from the beginning it is neither clear nor concise. From a first sentence filled with ambiguity about who an antiquarian is and what it is they study to errant tangential points throughout, the lead section provides a reader with a wandering first impression and no real confidence beyond that an antiquarian is someone having to do with old things. Moreover, there is an utter lack of citation, even as facts are directly stated.

Content:

The content of the article, while relevant, feels haphazard and without a good course of understanding about what about antiquarianism is particularly relevant. A great deal of attention is given to the "History" section, although each subsection takes an entirely different approach to what facts about antiquarianism throughout history are worth sharing. Also, while the article does include a section on "pejorative associations," it fails really to deal with antiquarianism as a social process, as an aspect in the development of archaeology and ancient history as a field, and the ramifications in the world today.

Tone and Balance:

This article has a neutral tone but its balance is very off. The bulk of the article is on the history of antiquarianism, including first antiquaries and notable antiquaries. Rather little is it discussed how antiquarianism as a discipline and belief has impacted academic study of history and how antiquarianism lead to governments and looters alike going to foreign places to excavate their archaeological history and bring it back for sale or display. However, antiquarian books and booksellers earn themselves an entire section.

Sources and References:

The sources, when provided, tend to be high quality sources that are well attributed in the bibliography. DOI's and links work. The larger issue is that there are many many unsourced claims. Some entire paragraphs, or even entire subsections have 0 or just one or two citations. So while the sources provided are good ones and relevant to the sections in which they are employed, the article as a whole is sorely lacking in sources.

Organization and Writing Quality:

From a purely grammatical standpoint, much of the article is well written. The information that has been selected is well presented in clear sections, though see sections on content and balance for further notes. The only major issue here I've seen is a confusion (remarked upon in the talk page) between antiquarian, antiquary, and antiquarianism.

Media:

The images are well laid out and well selected for the content of the article's foci, which again I find to be misguided and tangential to what really matters about antiquarianism today. There is nearly no focus on physical items and their ownership represented, which feels like an underemphasis.

Talk:

The article's talk page has a few different sections with helpful conversations and multiple replies, which seem helpful. However, it seems like sometimes there is an inclination toward the discussion of rather trivial aspects rather than addressing the more substantially struggling or lacking aspects of the article. But overall, a rather nice and helpful talk section.

'''Overall Impressions: '''My overall impression of the article is that it is not great but it is a work in progress (though it worries me that there hasn't been anything added to the talk page in over a year). All in all, the article could benefit from a restructuring that refocuses it toward more relevant information about antiquarianism, rather than the more fringe topics covered here. I agree with the current grade of C.