User:Texasroadhouser/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I will be evaluating the Wiki page concerning Ovid's Metamorphoses.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this page as it was the first subject that I could think of Classics-related and was fresh on my mind, having taken last semester a Latin-translation course in which I translated selected passages. Moreover, the significance of this text lies in how contentious Ovid as a historical and cultural figure is both to his contemporaries and to modern scholars. Interpreting one of his most notable works requires reliable context and secure foundation of study. To this end, my impression of the page

and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Indeed, the intro section, although noticeable biased with a "western" lens, does well to succinctly note the basic elements (publishing date, book length, et cetera) of the text and its scope.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The text uses sources that, today, would count as "modern" and updated; however, I noticed the author relatively overuses a book, published in the 1970s (I would say anything published past the 80s should be used sparsely, which is, to be fair, what the author does here). The text is a general introduction to Ovid's Metamorphoses; such a text would no doubt have gone through new and updated scholarly insight since then.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The author would do well to include more recent and mainstream media which would claim this text as a source of influence or direct modeling, i.e., not just in philosophy or allusion but exact narrative structure, themes, or language.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * As I have mentioned, the author does not hide its "wester" lens; this relatively overvalues all-too-known authors like Shakespeare and Dante. Additionally, it overemphasizes how extant Ovid sources come down to us, specifically through the renaissance.

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?
 * The article is highly neutral in tone, maintaining a scholarly distant narrative style.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * As is not surprising, the "Themes" section, which deals with the themes and their significances read highly filtered and argumentative. Such a section is pretty limited and precludes a lot of nuance of interpretation (they go so far as to cite, again, the general text mentioned above from the 1970s). Moreover, it, in the contents section, purports that a "recurring theme" is the work of Love, "Amor," or Cupid. This claim is uncited and seems to be the opinion of the author of the article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The influence that it had on Shakespeare is made very clear; I would even go further and discuss the modern media which interpolates him in turn, suggesting a deeper connection to Ovid vis-à-vis other sources. This buttresses my point about the bias of a "western" lens.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * If the article attempts to persuade, it does so out of exclusion, not deliberation. There is a lack of debate among sources; rather, there are claims and sources, which seems to suggest authorial discretion in the proposed arguments and the justification of such with a citation (I would like to see more citations that show nuance in interpretation).

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?
 * Most citations reference works that are from the late 1990s to the early 2010, suggesting the claims that are cited are recent and reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are specific, backing up individual claims of the author; the general texts that are used multiple times to give context and foundation, as I've mentioned, are not recent and could use some updating.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most are but the crux of the article rests on a source from the 1970s (the text was published by the University of California Press, which I assume was and could still be a reputable source).
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * This was a constant concern that I had. The sources are "western"-focused and biased. A diversification of sources would bolster the edification of the page.
 * 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.)
 * The sources that are cited were done so without malice or ignorance; they are relatively reliable. But, that being said, they seem cherry-picked and distracted, potentially leaving much to be included.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Since I know of Ovid's Metamorphoses' influence on modern media, I sought out the section dealing with such in the influence section. However, clicking on a link that purported to take me to a source that deals (it seemed generally, such as a bibliographic hub like Oxford Bibliographies), I was taken to Internet Archives, whose source was moved, deleted, or broken. I was not able to find what they author was referencing.

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, the language is clear and concise. A bit vague in many points but it seems innocuous enough.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I could discern.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the sections are well demarcated, but inadequate and biased in what it includes.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, they include media that was discussed in the text.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, they are detailed and informative (giving context).
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images are a bit small and, in retrospect, had not looked at them while reading; I would like the article to better include the images as a part of the text, not so much auxiliary media.

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?
 * They seem to support my general critiques: inadequate, biased, and under and overemphasizing elements (one user noted that the article failed to mentioned Ovid's contention in the Augustian era (in fact, having search for "Augustus" on the page, I was pointed to no results).
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is not included in any other project pages.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There are no countenancing for unknown information and loose interpretations. It lacks nuance and diversifications. It admits none of this.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Detailed, well-cited but very limited in scope.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It builds up the texts early history and convergence to a substantive text fairly well.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It would do well to diversify the opinions it includes, which are what come down to us today (for example, the story of the man's retrieval of his wife from the underworld only to loose her after turning around to see here was dealt poignantly in a modern French film, The Portrait of a Lady on Fire.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * In sum, underdeveloped. There is a lot of substantive perspectives and information left out, perhaps not intentionally.