User:Sheepreplicant9402/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: Faustulus
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because I have chosen to 'revamp' this article for my Wikipedia Assignment. This seems like a good head start.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentence could be improved upon by providing more clarity as to the importance of Faustulus in Roman mytho-history.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, as there are no other sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead acts essentially as the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise, but sporadic. More information is needed across the board.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content is relevant, but somewhat jumbled.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content is up-to-date as far as I can tell, but I will need to research the topic further to provide much more information and context.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Perhaps the article could dive into: 1) The full mytho-history surrounding Faustulus and Acca Larentia, and their raising of Romulus and Remus, 2) Art surrounding the topic, 3) Modern relevance, etc.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No - need to do more research into the equity gaps in Roman mytho-history.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * It does not appear so.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I don't believe so.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I don't think so, but there is so little here.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, more reliable sources needed. Also, if referencing Livy, perhaps one should introduce Livy into the article as a writer of oratory mytho-history with explicit bias, as opposed to presenting information provided by Livy as objective truth.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, but I'm unsure as to the ubiquity of available modern sources on Faustulus
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No, too few sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * No.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It could be improved upon.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I can see.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article needs fleshing out and to be built upon basically from the ground up.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, though more could be added, particularly if adding a section on Faustulus' representation in art.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * 2/3 do. I don't believe the Rubens piece adheres to regulations. Will need to look into.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes? More text is needed to aid in layout of the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are no conversations on this topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Rated: Stub-class
 * WikiProject: Classical Greece and Rome
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * N/A

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Stub-Class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is concise and contains a few good images. One scholarly journal is cited as a source that could be useful.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article really just needs adding to and fleshing out. It needs to be built.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is largely under-developed as opposed to poorly developed.

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: