User talk:ToriCheer18/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating? (Provide a link to the article here.)

Catacombs of Saint Agnes

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate? (Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it is what Wikipedia led me to. I started off at humanities because I just took a humanities course and found it interesting. After that it took me to subjects of humanities, so I picked religions, then I picked Christianity. After choosing Christianity it had me choose what about Christianity so I chose archeological art and then it had me pick an era and then lastly a catacomb. So that is how I picked out my article. My impression of this article was that the Toponym was a little confusing and didn't really grab my attention, I lost interest fast. However, the history of the article was interesting and brought my attention back to the article.

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.)

Lead Section:

-The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.

-I do not think that this article's brief description includes parts of the major sections.

-No, the lead does not include information that is not present in the article.

-The lead is concise.

Content:

-The article's content is relevant to the topic.

-The content is up to date.

-I do not believe that there is content missing or that does not belong in this article.

-I don't believe that this article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. This article does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance:

-Yes, this article is from a neutral point of view.

-No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.

-I do not believe that there are any viewpoints that are over or under represented in this article.

-No, this article does not try yo persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References:

-No, not all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source.

-No, the source is not through - i.e. The source does not reflect the available literature of the topic well.

-No, the source is not current.

-No, the source is not written in a diverse spectrum of authors. No, the source does not include historically marginalized individuals where possible.

-No, there are no better sources available for this article that are listed.

-No, they source does not work.

Organization and writing quality:

-In some parts of this article is well-written and it is concise, clear, and easy to read. In other areas it is not.

-No, the article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.

-Yes, this article is well-organized and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media:

-The article does include an image that enhances the understanding of this topic.

-The image is somewhat well captured.

-The image does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

-There is only one image so it is laid out at the top, so I guess you could say it is laid out in a visually appealing way.

Talk page discussion:

-There are no conversations in this talk page.

-Yes, it is apart of two WikiProjects.

-We have not talked about this topic in class, so I do not know how it differs.

Overall Impressions:

-The articles strengths are its history section.

-The article can be improved with better sources and more than one. As well as fixing the way the Toponym paragraph is written.

-I would have to say this article is underdeveloped because of the one source that doesn't work, and none of the information being backed up.

-ToriCheer18 (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)