User:Uaryal141/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.


 * Name of article: Napoleon
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate:

I have chosen to do Napoleon since I have keen interest in European History, and Napoleon sits as a very influential figure in shaping the political dynamics and balance of power we see present in Europe today.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * Yes, the first sentence describes the articles topic and gives details on Napoleon such as positions he has held and important events he has been influential in.
 * Yes, the Lead includes a brief description of multiple sections that are relevant to the article's topic (e.g. Early Life, Travels, Military).
 * No, the Lead essentially foreshadows the topics that are included in the rest of the article; there is no information that is not included elsewhere.
 * The lead is concise, straight-to-the-point, and well articulated in a manner that allows those who have no idea about the topic to have a baseline understanding.


 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the articles content is relevant to the topic as all the areas of content are directly associated with Napoleon, his ideas, words, actions, and history.

Yes, the content is up-to-date. There are recent citations from newer sources that are relevant (deeming that the content still incorporates new findings about the topic).

No, after reading through the page, all of the content on the page is relevant/there is no content that does not belong.


 * the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral, and the tone is presented in a very matter-of-fact manner.

There are no claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position - sentence line is presented in a neutral standpoint with a high factual presence.

Each viewpoint is synthesized with viewpoints of other perspectives, giving balance to each lens.

There are no attempts to persuade. The language used is neutral is really up to the interpretation of the reader.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Yes, all the facts presented are synthesized with another secondary source reaffirming the facts.

The sources are very thorough. Facts about events, wars, dates, are presented with primary and secondary sources. Facts about Napoleon's influences and thoughts are presented with his own original works (primary sources).

The sources are current and reflect a wide range of literature on the topic. Primary sources are relevant albeit they are from 17-1800's, and secondary sources are relevant and current.

Check: links work.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is very well written and has a clear, matter-of-fact, read to it. The writing level is also in a really good range so that it allows more people/audiences to be able to understand the language inside the article.

The article appears to have no grammatical or spilling errors based on my level of grammar, syntax, and vocabulary.

Yes, the article is broken down via various topics that are key features of Napoleon. This sectioning allows the reader to find all relevant information they are looking for just in that specific section.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the images enhance the understanding of the topic. Different sections have different images relevant to that section and the images only further the article as a whole.

The images are well-captioned with a short description of the image, who is in the image/what is the image about, and when the image is from.

Yes, all images appear to not violate any copyright regulations and are free for public use.

Yes, the images do not detract from the language of the article, nor does it cause a distraction; it is an aide and achieves this purpose.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There are conversations talking about which content is relevant to include. This includes quotes that are not directly related to him such as his potential Italian descent [what is the point of including it, etc], height, the sale of Louisiana to the United States. The challenge, how I see it, is to choose what information is pertinent, what manner the information should be presented, and which facts should be stated to support certain topics.

The article is rated a good article - A class article. It is a level three vital article in People. This article is part of 840 WikiProjects including "Military History", "Video Games", to name a few.

Not sure - Napoleon has not been discussed in class, but it has all relevant information on Napoleon therefore chances are, if we did go over something in class about him, it would be in here.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article's overall status is an A class article. It is a level three vital article in People. It is also a semi-protected article and is deemed a good article by Wikipedia.

The articles strengths are many including attention to detail, synthesis of sources to provide factual statements, and maintaining a neutral tone throughout.

The article can be improved perhaps by streamlining some ideas. The overall length of the article is very long compared to others, and I feel like better sentences can be created to convey ideas more efficiently.

I would assess the articles completeness is very complete. The overall nature of the article is very detailed, thorough, and concise. The incorporation of facts is extensive, and there is lots of information for the reader to see. It is really well-developed.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: