User:Zcraaay/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: People's Crusade
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

As the largest and most well documented of the Crusades I thought this topic would give me plenty of substance to evaluate. When I was first looking for articles to evaluate I was concerned by the depth a lot of the articles I came across on topics associated with this class had. I realized that to properly evaluate an article there most be sufficient substance, and with this article I believe there is.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The lead includes a introductory sentence that does an apt job of setting the tone for the rest of the page and includes a concise and clear description of this articles topic. The lead also includes a section that contains links to each of the major sections the article contains. The lead contains for the most part only information that is further touched upon later in the article. The only thing touched on in the lead not included else where in the article is the take of modern historian Heinrich Hagenmeyer and his theory as to why Peter not Pope Urban II was the real instigator of the crusade. The lead is properly concise and does a fantastic job of introducing the reader to the topic before going more in depth later in the article into its many nuances later.


 * 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

This articles content is relevant to the topic, and only touches on issues that help to give a better understanding of the topic as whole. Most of the sources range from the late 1990’s to early 2000’s therefore significant advances could have been made by academics in the past two decades, I am not aware of such advancements though. Touched on briefly in the introduction but then not mentioned again was the take of modern historian Heinrich Hagenmeyer who had a theory as to why Peter not Pope Urban II was the real instigator of the crusade. Although briefly mentioned in the introduced the article fails to mention his theory again leaving a significant content gap, as modern takes on historical events provide a new lens to understanding topics alongside first hand accounts.


 * Is 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
 * This piece seems slightly slanted against that of the Catholic Church. Specifically it claims that Pope Urban II planned the crusade even whilst later saying peasants and serfs of the time had made the choice to crusade all on their own, without being prodded by the church. This inconsistency seems to paint the church in an unfair light. I believe the Vatican's perspective on the People's Crusade was underrepresented as it seems the only religious figure to have his beliefs on the crusades made clear is that of a monk Peter the Hermit of Amiens.


 * 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
 * The links work, and reference books held by libraries held in high esteem in the academic world such as both Yale and Cambridge Universities presses. This Wikipedia page does not take many liberties with the conclusions and facts presented by its sources and does a fantastic job of presenting its sources information. These sources are academic and are reliable to draw from. Each section in this Wiki page except for the one titled “Walter and the French” includes a citation at the end of every paragraph. The aforementioned section does not include a single citation.


 * 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 is written clearly albeit simplistically. It is both concise and easy to read but does not do much more than the bare minimum to do the topic justice. The article has no glaring grammatical or spelling issues. The article is well organized and has been broken down into numerous sub sections that build on one another and do a great job of helping to build a well rounded base of knowledge about the topic.


 * 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
 * The article includes images that enhance the understanding topic. Some example of these include Peter preaching to townsfolk in Christendom riling them up in preparation for the Peoples Crusade. Another example of this is a picture of the siege of Nis which was a major victory for Peter led forces in the first Crusade. The images captions include a brief description and the author and date of creation when available. All of the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright rules and regulations. The images are placed alongside the text and help keep the article interesting and less text heavy.


 * 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
 * After reviewing the articles conversations, none appear to have taken place. This article is rated as B-Class or of low importance. It is currently part of numerous Wiki Projects including Christianity/Catholicism, Military History, Middle Ages/ Crusades, and Turkey. This Wikipedia page goes into more specifics on this specific crusade and the gains and losses had, whilst in class we have looked at the crusades as whole to help better understand the religious conflict between Islam and Christianity.


 * 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 articles overall status is well devolved but incomplete. The information provided is relevant, concise, and structured in a good manner to helping the reader understand the topic as a whole. There are drawbacks as it lacks the necessary sources in some sections to be used by students or historians for academic purposes . With the addition of those missing sources and the articles current clear and concise flow it would be a fantastic source for general information on this specific crusade, and great place from where to source sources for academic purposes on the crusades as a whole.


 * 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: