User:Sllysugry23/Evaluate an Article

Evaluation: Aqsunqur Mosque
Aqsunqur Mosque - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article, because I am unfamiliar with mosque architechural structures. I want to understand the reason behind the structure, and it's importance to the religion and artwork.

Lead section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, this article has an introductory sentence that explains the article regarding the mosque.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it does not.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, it does not.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Somewhat, I would have liked some more historical context on the persons buried there.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it has historical context, geographical location, and religion.
 * Is the content up to date?
 * No, the talking points and links were last updated 2024.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * To my knowledge, no. It appears to be aligned with the title and subject matter.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No. The subject matter regarding Islam, religion and art are well documented in the C-Class articles, and talks.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, with historical context.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * I did not read any minority or fringe viewpoints.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it provides a historical location related to mosque architectures.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, Williams, Caroline (2008), Islamic monuments in Cairo, American University of Cairo Press, ISBN 9774162056
 * 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?
 * The literature I reviewed is written by a woman, name Caroline Williams; Archnet
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Caroline Williams, is an excellent source. I reviewed her scholar report in Archnet.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the images are beautiful and are relatable to our course readings.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, with links.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, information is cited in the bibliography.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Mostly yes, but there is one picture listed under interior, but it reflects the exterior.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, by categories'.
 * 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, it was broken down by sections. The edit page provided more information, than the original article.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. Again, the edit page of pictures is better than the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, some with links.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No, they could have been laid out better.

Talk page discussion.
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * On the review page, there are current (2024) updates and feedback presented and as late as (2018).
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any Wiki Projects?
 * There is no rating listed. However, it is of interest in Wiki Projects regarding Egypt and Islamic Mosque.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discuss this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * In regard to our readings thus far, the information is limited in format and content based on article and library readings from previous weeks.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Active
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Historical points
 * Education
 * Openness to feedback.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I believe that if the author of this article would provide more information on a regular basis, it would improve.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would not say that the article is underdeveloped by my standards, since I am learning the process. However, I do believe that more information is better than a lack of information.  For example, the history of the mosoluems was an interesting point of discussion that was not fully developed, in my opinion.