User talk:NotKBall/sandbox

Article Evaluation

Purges of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Lead - The is the body. If the article was divided up a bit then it could have a lead with a little bit of work but overall the lead is non-existence.

Structure - The structure of this particular page is extremely limited. There is no sections or another area to view. It is a short page with basically the lead giving the full information.

Balance - The page is just the one body where there isn't any other sections like a history of the events or more supporting detail to the article.

Neutrality - The article is fairly neutral. The language at times is a little interesting but it is fair. There isn't a bias to one thing or another and tries to offer up the information as it is presented in the sources.

Sources - With a total of 5 sources it is hard to really critique the sources. Most of the sources are good and reliable but there isn't enough information to give the sources a high grade. There needs to be considerably more sources to make the article more reliable.

Overall this article is very short with limited scope on the whole topic. The article has a total of 5 sources which seems to be extremely light on the topic. Along with the heading at the topic that states the article needs more citations from reliable sources. This is an incomplete page and needs quite a bit of work to become better put together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotKBall (talk • contribs) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

Sack of Rome (410) Lead - The lead section of the article gives a decent overview but seems to be very broad and doesn't really explain what happened or why it happened.

Structure - The Structure of the article is pretty well organized and it does go into further depth about why and detail into the Sack of Rome.

Balance - The balance of the article is quite nice. Most of the headings and subheadings are somewhat small but the general balance is quite well done.

Neutrality - The article is neutral throughout and doesn't seem to support any one person or argument.

Sources - Plenty of footnotes throughout the article. Sources are from Oxford, Cambridge, John Hopkins and other reliable universities.

Overall the article covers the topic and explains many of the events that led up to the sack along with the actual sack of Rome. There is always some more information to be found and put into the article but the article itself is fairly well done and a great starting point for a good wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotKBall (talk • contribs) 02:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)