User:Tsetness/Evaluate an Article

Evaluation of The Battle of Alexander at Issus
The Battle of Alexander at Issus

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article intrigued me because it was a historical event with an awesome first picture. The picture was intricate and captured a lot of grandeur. I also had never heard of the battle but was bound to the household name of Alexander, so I was intrigued to learn more about the leader.

Evaluate the article
Lead section: The lead section of this page was well formed and detailed the events in a non biased way. it articulated the art and the artist, the historical depiction of the event and gave a brief artistic insight on the meta of the battle depicting the religious input on the piece.

Content: The content of the piece was through describing the historical overview of the battle with a detailed explanation of the strategy and historical opinions of the leaders at the time. The content was also thorough in the meticulous breakdown in the parts of the artwork making many references to the artist collections in which the original artwork was included. The history of the artwork and the discussion around the artist was also well woven into the content. The content was also well spaced in creating enough subsections to create a solid foundation to delve into the subject. The subjects were also broad enough to not be too complicit in overlapping detail and creating enough breadth to create an intersectional approach to the piece.

Tone and Balance: Tone and balance was pretty neutral with little if any tonal partiality. It was presented pretty factual and the author sounded knowledgable throughout the piece and was well adept to adding important detail without creating too much nuance lexically.

Sources and references: the notes and references were broad and seemed well sourced. the attention to citing was a good indication of the amount of references and cites used. There were also plenty of hyperlinked words that articulated the nuance of some ideas or concepts throughout the piece which was studiously adept. I also like that addition of the gallery, which I am uncertain to the extent art pages have, but was interesting and seemingly innovative for future reference.

Organization and writing quality: The overall organization and writing quality was solid. It had a very nice readability that centered well on any subject at hand without being to exhaustive. The insights were articulated in a palpable way which made each section articulate and well versed.

Images and media: There were plenty of images from macroscopic of the initial image, to branched images relating to the artist and other works of similar characteristics and schema.

Talk page and discussion: The talk page was rather civil and had good insights to what needed to be done and how best to acknowledge the intricacies of ideas. There were plenty of comments stating edits made, and the responses were well received and courteous.

Overall impressions: I really liked this page and the way it was laid out. I think it was a generic wikipedia page but had the right information and imagery to accompany that made it more coherent. My overall impression was that the page was astute and reliable, detailed but with wide breadth.