User:Sarag720/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: Velletri Sarcophagus
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article relates to archeology and also pertains to how an archeologist looks at death. It examines a Roman sarcophagus.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes; no
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Grammar and formatting issues.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C class; yes
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It doesn't really. The discussions say that it should not read like a rough draft and should be concise.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? C
 * What are the article's strengths? Concise and easy to read
 * How can the article be improved? Some sentences are worded weird. Cut phrases like "at first glance"
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Well developed

Overall evaluation
Take out filler words and phrases that are not needed.

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
 * How can the article be improved? Some sentences are worded weird. Cut phrases like "at first glance"

with four tildes — ~ Sarag720


 * Link to feedback:How can the article be improved? Some sentences are worded weird. Cut phrases like "at first glance"