User:Yq58/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate the article: Pegasus
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link) Pegasus
 * Reasoning for evaluation: I have chosen to evaluate this article because Greek mythology has great history and stories.

Lead



 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it gives you a description of the Deity and his importance to mythology.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Pin point descriptions and informational.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? I'm unsure of the question, but they have added links to to the other characters and
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? think detailed to the needed amount, very informative to give you a summary of his life from start to end and everything in between.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, it even includes references to all related to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not see it so.

Content evaluation
I feel it was very informational and up to date, since it is history/mythology from the past. I have read books and recollect the information stated in this article. It is also very informative as it did contain things I also did not know.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral? Yes, purely informational, exactly like an encyclopedia.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. It strictly states what had happened, not leaning to one character than the other, or favoring a character etc.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I do not believe so, I feel they had a perfect balance at executing the information.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Definitely not.

Tone and balance evaluation:
Very well done and a non-biased way to tell the story of Pegasus. Informational and detailed the perfect amount, not excessively.

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes they have numerous references, although most from wiki.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? As current as they can be, since it is history. Most recent being from 2018.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they redirect or inform me correctly.

Sources and references evaluation
Well included, although I would have liked to see more external references.

Organization



 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, not messy, cleared one path.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I guess there might be a few, but I am not professional in grammar so I would not have noticed.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, clear paragraphs and story movements.

Organization evaluation
Well done and well spaced. Not overwhelming or disturbing in formatting.

Images and Media



 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, they clearly state he is a flying horse.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, along with being dated.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so as they all have external links and are cited.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Absolutely.

Images and media evaluation
Very well done and brings the ancient information to life.

Checking the talk page

 * 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? es it is part of Mythology, Greece, Greece &Rome, along with Heraldry& Vexillology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? These are very opinionated and have agree&disagreements.

Talk page evaluation
A bit of a mess, and more opinion based than factual. Some do provide evidence, but they may be coming from a biased mentality. Although some are just trying to correct.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? I would give it a 10/10.
 * What are the article's strengths? Information along with photos.
 * How can the article be improved? I'm unsure as it looks well done to me.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think it has what is needed. For an example if I was conducting a study on Pegasus and wanted to get the basis of it as I had no clue, it gets to the point without confusion but a good amount of detail.

Overall evaluation
Clear and concise, perfect balance of info and detail.

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: