User:Slovakia's finest/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Chimera (mythology)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because chimera is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting "characters" in mythology and I've always been truly interested in its stories. I think that it deserves the same attention as Sirens, Minotaur or other popular mythological beings and unfortunately I felt like the wikipedia page doesn't provide as much information about it as it should.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section of the article is well-written. It provides the reader with an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic; it is very straightforward with no overly detailed information and does not present any information that is not mentioned later in the article. However, the lead section needs a brief description of the article's major sections, which needs to be added.

Content

The content of the Chimera article is well-balanced, relevant to the topic, and up to date, with no information that would be irrelevant to the topic. Personally, I would shorten the part about similar creatures as it is not as important as other passages. On the other hand, there is definitely information that could be added to this article about its origin and classical sources, or even iconography, as those sections are very short.

Tone and Balance

The article is written in a neutral tone, without any bias towards particular positions. There is no over, or underrepresentation of certain viewpoints, and no subjective opinions are presented in the article. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader to favor any position. However, since the Chimera is a mythical creature and there is a lot of unknown around it, the article presents some hypotheses and assumptions that should be highlighted as such more clearly.

Sources and References

The sources and references for this article are reliable as they are primarily scholarly books or academic publications, and they back up the facts in the article. The sources are thorough and current in regard to the article's topic. They are written by many different authors, which assures the reader that the information they get is objective and well-researched. The reader can also easily access the resources as the links to the sources are working and up to date.

Organization and writing quality

The writing of this article is professional, concise, and transparent, with the content separated into sections. It has no blatant grammatical or spelling errors and is well-balanced. However, the sections' order could be changed for a better reading experience.

Images and media

The article is supported by several images that genuinely help the reader understand and visualize the topic. Personally, I think that some more images could be added to ensure that the reader can imagine what he is reading about and to limit confusion about the physical attributes of Chimera. The images are well-captioned; in fact, some of the captions might be too detailed, too long to read, and should be shortened. They definitely elevate the article's visual and make it more appealing while adhering to all of Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Talk page discussion

There are many conversations and ideas presented on this article's talk page. The most interesting one is regarding the sex of Chimera, as it appears that Chimera is female. Another exciting conversation is regarding the Chimera origins, precisely the fact that Chimera is the monsterization of Cimmerians, ancient warlike people. The article is rated as a level-5 vital article in Philosophy and start-class by WikiProject vital articles. It is part of WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, and WikiProject Mythology. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic is more official and formal than how we talk about mythology in class, where it is a more open and informal setting.

Overall impression

The article is well written and researched; however, it still needs some updates in order to be completed, which can be seen by looking at its talk page. The article's biggest strengths are definitely its lead page which provides an excellent, concise description of the article, and the images that make the article visually appealing as well. The most significant weaknesses that need to be improved are the absence of a table of contents, the order of the individual sections, and some missing information that can be added to the individual sections. I think the article is a little underdeveloped as there are definitely areas with room for improvement.