User:TheLieberProf/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

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?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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

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?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

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

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?

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

Which article are you evaluating?[edit]

Nestor's Cup (Pithekoussai)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit]

I chose this article because I am relatively familiar with the artifact it discusses. It is an important artifact because it has one of the earliest known Greek inscriptions. My preliminary impression of the article is that it is quite short. This is how you edit a page.

Evaluate the article[edit]

(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[edit]

The lead includes a concise and clear introductory sentence.
The lead introduces the sections that are covered in the article.
The lead includes information not present elsewhere in the article about the discovery of the cup.
The lead is concise. If anything, I think it needs a bit more about the Homeric reference (I.e.: why is it called "Nestor"'s cup.

Content[edit]

The article's content is relevant.
The article's content is up to date for the most part? I'm surprised that nothing has been published about the cup since 2017, which is the most recently cited article.
I think more can be said about why the artifact is called "Nestor"'s cup; even if the brief reference about it were moved to a new section in the article, that might work.
This article does not really deal with an equity gap. One way of thinking about, though, could be to consider that it's highlighting an inscription when those types of evidence are normally ignored in a discussion of ancient texts.

Tone and Balance[edit]

The article is neutral.
No claims appear particularly biased.
The viewpoints highlighted seem balanced.
There are no minority or fringe view points, but the discussion of how to restore the text shows particular balance.
The article does not attempt to persuade the reader at all.

Sources and References[edit]

All facts are supported by reliable secondary sources.
The sources are current.
The sources are not particularly recent.
The sources do not represent a diverse spectrum of authors, but this may be the nature of the type of scholars who write about this object.
The sources chosen are of high quality (peer-reviewed, etc.)
The links work.

Organization and Writing Quality[edit]

The article is well written.
The article has no grammatical or spelling errors.
The article is well organized, but I think an additional section about the Homeric reference would make it more accessible.

Images and Media[edit]

The article does include images.
The images are well captioned.
I think the images all follow Wikipedia's guidelines.
The images are arranged in a pleasing way.

Talk page discussion[edit]

There are no conversations on the Talk page.
The article is rated "Start-class" and it is a part of three WikiProjects.
We haven't talked about this in class!

Overall impressions[edit]

The article seems incomplete.
The article incorporates good images and fairly represents different scholarly opinions.
This article can be improved by including more information about the Homeric reference and more recent sources.