User:UW AE 2024/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title
 * Estipite


 * Article Evaluation

Lead section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There are no sections so no
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Yes
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is overly detailed. Half of the article is the lead

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * I honestly dont know. It might be but it just seems to be talking about altarpieces. Don't know if this is relevent to the topic of estipites.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Article is extremely short so I bet a lot is missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, b/c it is talking about a niche column order from a specific architectural time period that is not well known.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No viewpoint represented.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No minor viewpoints right now.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Looks like it
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I think so
 * Are the sources current?
 * Books written before 1980. Don't know from when the websites are from.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * It is written by a wide range of authors
 * 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.)
 * Yes, found stuff on UW database
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization and writing quality

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * There is not much here. The body is hard to read because a lot is going on.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No because no subcategories

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Two images
 * One is a good example
 * The other one is hard to see
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Talk page discussion

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * None
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * None
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We havent talked about this yet

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Very weak and incomplete
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * None
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Add more info on the topic. Include a few more sections to the article. Include more photos.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * poorly developed


 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Trdat (architect)


 * Article Evaluation

Lead section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Could have more examples of the work that he did. Also about his architectural style and methods.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes because it is talking about an architect who is not that well known

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, there is more info out there
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, from the mid 20th century
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * 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.)
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization and writing quality

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. It is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No. Only one photo that is of Hagia Sophia. Which is not focused on the dome, which he reconstructed.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No, too small

Talk page discussion

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * One about clarity due to grammar
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Biography, Armenia, Architecture
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * No

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Short and sweet right now. Could definitely add more information.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Nice and consice
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Add more info on buildings he helped design.
 * Also about his style or contributions to architecture
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * underdeveloped


 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Tidewater architecture


 * Article Evaluation

Lead section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No sections
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Yes, the features of the style
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * concise

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * A lot is missing:
 * Style features
 * History
 * Examples
 * Architects
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No fringe viewpoints
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No sources
 * Are the sources current?
 * No sources
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No sources
 * 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.)
 * Yes, found stuff on UW databases
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization and writing quality

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Hard to read because overs way to many topics in only one paragraph
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No, b/c there are no sections

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, only have one image and it is ok
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No, could have a better caption
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Talk page discussion

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * None
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * None
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Have not talked about it yet

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Unfinished
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Beginning to talk about the style features
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Style features elaborated
 * History
 * Examples
 * Architects
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * poorly developed


 * Sources