User:TheLieberProf/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Nestor's Cup (Pithekoussai)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am relatively familiar with the artifact it discusses. It is an important artifact because it has one of the earliest known Greek inscriptions. My preliminary impression of the article is that it is quite short. This is how you edit a page.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section

 * The lead includes a concise and clear introductory sentence.
 * The lead introduces the sections that are covered in the article.
 * The lead includes information not present elsewhere in the article about the discovery of the cup.
 * The lead is concise. If anything, I think it needs a bit more about the Homeric reference (I.e.: why is it called "Nestor"'s cup.

Content

 * The article's content is relevant.
 * The article's content is up to date for the most part? I'm surprised that nothing has been published about the cup since 2017, which is the most recently cited article.
 * I think more can be said about why the artifact is called "Nestor"'s cup; even if the brief reference about it were moved to a new section in the article, that might work.
 * This article does not really deal with an equity gap. One way of thinking about, though, could be to consider that it's highlighting an inscription when those types of evidence are normally ignored in a discussion of ancient texts.

Tone and Balance

 * The article is neutral.
 * No claims appear particularly biased.
 * The viewpoints highlighted seem balanced.
 * There are no minority or fringe view points, but the discussion of how to restore the text shows particular balance.
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the reader at all.

Sources and References

 * All facts are supported by reliable secondary sources.
 * The sources are current.
 * The sources are not particularly recent.
 * The sources do not represent a diverse spectrum of authors, but this may be the nature of the type of scholars who write about this object.
 * The sources chosen are of high quality (peer-reviewed, etc.)
 * The links work.

Organization and Writing Quality

 * The article is well written.
 * The article has no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The article is well organized, but I think an additional section about the Homeric reference would make it more accessible.

Images and Media

 * The article does include images.
 * The images are well captioned.
 * I think the images all follow Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * The images are arranged in a pleasing way.

Talk page discussion

 * There are no conversations on the Talk page.
 * The article is rated "Start-class" and it is a part of three WikiProjects.
 * We haven't talked about this in class!

Overall impressions

 * The article seems incomplete.
 * The article incorporates good images and fairly represents different scholarly opinions.
 * This article can be improved by including more information about the Homeric reference and more recent sources.