User:TiwazHagalaz/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.


 * Tomb of Ahmed Sanjar
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because it is relevant to the course I am taking.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead does not include a clear introductory sentence that introduces the topic. It only says some information about when the Tomb was built, but not what the tomb actually is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the Lead is only two sentences long.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the information in the second sentence is not mentioned elsewhere in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead may be too short and concise.

Lead evaluation
The Lead is very short and does not include a description of information the reader should expect. The Lead does not have a clear introdution and just includes information that would not fit elsewhere in any of the other sections.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is very relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No. The most recent source is from 2008, and there has been more scholarship since then.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is some information missing about the history of the mausoleum and the analysis of the building is very minimal.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, the topic is related to art in the Medieval Islamic World.

Content evaluation
The content is relevant, but very limited. This needs to be updated with more recent scholarship, especially scholarship regarding the interpretation of the architecture.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * No, the only problem is a phrase calling the Tomb "one of the grandest Seljuk tombs." The term "grandest" implies an opinion.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, other than a superlative.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * All viewpoints seem underrepresented. The scholarship regarding the Tomb is not covered in much detail.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, there is no attempt to persuade the reader into any position other than calling the Tomb grander than other tombs.

Tone and balance evaluation
Apart from using a superlative in one sentence, the rest of the article is very neutral and unbiased.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All facts have a citation.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they seem to be.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, the most recent source is from 2008.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Most sources are academic articles written by people who are not historically marginalized.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links are functional.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are pretty good, although they are all a little old. Perhaps it would be good to include more recent scholarship in the article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is very concise and to the point.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no grammatical nor spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the article has a few smaller sections, although those sections are a little too short.

Organization evaluation
The article is well organized. The only issue is that many sections are too short.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, there are two images: one of the outside of the Tomb and one of a drawing of the Tomb on a banknote.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Only the second image has a caption. The first is the one used at the beginning of the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, they do.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they are laid out well.

Images and media evaluation
The images are good to keep. However, there should probably be images of the interior added as well.

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 the Talk Page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is not a part of any WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The Wikipedia article does not include a lot of cultural context.

Talk page evaluation
There is no active talk page for the Tomb of Ahmed Sanjar.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * While accurate and neutral, the article was super short and has old sources.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The little information the article gives is neutral and accurate.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More information could be added. Also one could go and look at more recent scholarship.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is not very complete. It is super underdeveloped and does not include much information.

Overall evaluation
Overall, while this article has a good start, it needs much more information to flesh it out.

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: