User:WitchyWriter/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Aberlemno Sculptured Stones

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it's similar to the stub article I'm thinking of editing for this project. The article seems okay, but it looks like it needs a lot of work yet. Some of the sentence structure is confusing in the Aberlemno 2 paragraph, and then some of the other sections are a little lacking. It's a good skeleton of an article, but it's missing a lot.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The leader is fairly okay, but it doesn't mention the 2022 stone that has its own section later in the article. It seems to be a new addition and maybe the leader section hasn't been updated yet, although it seems like it should be if you're adding an entire new section.

The following section (Location) is also not updated with the 2022 stone finding either, nor even the 5th stone. I also think it would be better placed after the Description section for a better flow.

The Description needs a fair amount of work. Some of sentences aren't very well constructed and are hard to read. Aberlemno 2 has the most information about it, whereas the other five do not. The 2nd stone description is the only one to include measurements as well. Some research into the other stones would help.

There's also the section about the Woodwrae stone, which seems out of place, especially since it already has its own page and doesn't have anything connecting it the Aberlemnos, other than being relatively nearby. It's a little random.

Some of the vocabulary used here is a bit niche, in the fact that I had to look up what they meant, such as "roundel" and "quadrilobate." Words like these most people are unfamiliar with. Also explaining a little bit what the Class system used by Romilly and Allen would be helpful.

The sources are a wide range, but there are also fairly old, with most of them from the 1990s or 2000s or earlier. However, the links work and go to useable pages, which is good.

The images are helpful, but they need to be arranged better. The images of 1 and 2 need to be flipped, so they line up with their descriptions. Right now, Aberlemno 1 is next to the description of Aberlemno 2, and vise-versa. The photos in the gallery could be more used in the article and interspersed throughout it instead sitting at the end. They seem like an afterthought.

Overall, this article needs help. It has a nice skeleton, but needs to be a bit more fleshed out and checked over from readability and clunkiness.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting