User:WillaSB3/sandbox

Article Evaluated:

Review of https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:Maat, the Spanish version of the Maat article.

Reasoning:

Maat is an important subject in ancient Egypt and thus in the development of human culture. Because Maat was both a goddess as well as the ideology that supported the Pharaoh and the Egyptian hierarchy and way of life for millennia, its study is still important today. The reason I am reviewing the Spanish article is because it is lacking a great deal of the information that the English article has, and it is important that knowledge be available to multiple languages so that more people can access information. Linguistic equality is important, particularly in an online space such as this, and one step toward that equality is equal access to information.

Lead Section:

The lead section is very strong and concise. It mentions the main understandings of Maat, which is as a goddess and as an abstract concept. It does currently mention the main section, although as the article needs more sections the lead section will have to grow. It does not include any information that is not included in the article.

Content:

While the content is all relevant to the topic, it is not very well-developed. It is missing a great number of the sections and subsections that are present in the English version of the article, such as history, law, and scribes. The sections that it does have are very under-developed, with no sub headings that address various aspects of history, Maat as a social order, and the large role that Maat played in the afterlife and the various aspects of belief related to that. There are also no examples given of the writings detailing Maat, such as the 42 Negative confessions, any excerpts from the Instruction of Ptahhotep, and any letters exemplifying Maat either as a goddess or a concept. It also is missing Maat as a rhetorical approach, although that is also missing from the English page. Also missing is references to current worship. This article does not directly address equity issues, although the lack of information in Spanish could count.

The content is accurate, but not up to date, as the most recent reference comes from 1994.

Tone and Balance:

The tone and balance of this article are very good. The tone is neutral throughout and does not push one source over another. However, with so few references it does not adequately represent multiple viewpoint not because of an error in writing but because there simply is not enough information.

Sources and References:

There are only two sources cited, and they are only cited once each in consecutive sentences. While both references are good references that fit Wikipedia's standards, they are from the 60s and the 90s, and as such are outdated by themselves. This article needs a great deal more citations and references.

Organization and Writing Quality:

This article is well-organized, considering how little information there is, and well-written. The wording is concise and the grammar and vocabulary are also up to standard.

Images and Media:

There are only three images included, and two are nearly the same. In contrast, the English article has a variety of images from multiple sources, such as artifacts, paintings, and digital recreations. I did not see any citations, so I can't tell if there is a copyright on the images or not. Only one image is well-captioned. However, the images are arranged decently, although there is room for improvement as the article grows in length.

Talk Page Discussion:

There is very little discussion on the talk page. The most recent discussion is from 2013, which actually looks like a proposed edit focusing on the summary of Maat as a concept. The other was an opinion on the importance of Maat to the Egyptian Pharaohs even after the old kingdom, which the writer believed was not adequately represented. This was from 2006. I cannot find a rating, and it doesn't look like it is part of any WikiProjects. The discussions do briefly touch on the importance of Maat as a concept, but skip over the rhetorical aspects that class focused on. They did, however, acknowledge it as important to the social order, just like we did.

Overall Impressions:

Overall, this article is very short and needs a great deal more information to match up to the same article in other languages. I'd say that this article is very under-developed. Currently, its greatest strength is its clear neutral voice. The article can be improved, as stated, with more information, citations, and references.

Comments from Dr. Vetter

Hello ,

Remember that you can use the questions/exercise from Wiki Ed to also help you evaluate the article. This is a good start though. Just to be clear - you are evaluating the Spanish Wikipedia article on Maat - and planning to (possibly)improve that article? This is fine. The lead of an article does not need always need citations because it is most often a summary and forecasting of the content in the main body (which does have citations). I agree that the rest of the article needs more references and much more content in the areas you mentioned. My advice would be to choose 2 or 3 areas you would like to improve, work on that content first, and then you can update the lead after. Great work on this! Dr. Vetter (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)