User:Schrodingers.satire/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Julius Nepos - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I picked this article because it was the first name on the page that looked interesting.

Evaluate the article

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations?
 * What else could be improved?

Everything is relevant. Images are not distracting, as well as topical. This information's is up to date, with the most relevant source coming from 2016. I would say the article is equitable. The article is direct and a brief overview of the topic, it is effective for a platform like Wikipedia.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The article is neutral, and factual.


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Do the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications?

The links work, and the information is supporting the cited claim. The article uses sources a bit more sparingly than I would, but they are still effective. I cannot see any clear signs that the sources lack diversity.

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.


 * 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?

Others have mentioned the lack of sources, but it is not egregious. Some translations are off as well.