User:Amazur2/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?

Acropolis of Athens

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose the Acropolis of Athens because it was listed as a C-Class and was a topic that was discussed in my class. I was interested to learn more about the Acropolis of Athens and to see how detailed its page was for being C-Class, as I would have some knowledge regarding the architecture.

The Acropolis of Athens is important because it offers a distinct insight into the Greek architecture of its time, and it had a large cultural significance to Greek civilization.

Preliminarily, before really reading it, I was impressed by the contents regarding its history. I also appreciated how the different structures on the site plan for major archaeological remains gave a list of direct links to relevant pages.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

The introductory sentence gives a good definition of what Acropolis of Athens is, but it could likely be more concise.
It gives a brief rundown of the history well, but it does not touch on the other important contents in the Contents tab.
Information provided in the introduction is located elsewhere in the article.
Overall, the lead is fairly concise and states important information.

Content

The content of the article is pertinent on the Acropolis of Athena.
The most recent source was from July of 2021.
All of the content appears to fit. I think it does a good job of not putting in too much information that in all reality belongs on other, more specific pages (i.e. information on specific structures).

Tone and Balance

The article is written with neutral words, and seems to be well balanced. The different authors of the page are not distinct, which is good.

Sources and References

There could be more references:
- First paragraph of Early Settlement does not have a reference
- Another reference in the "Byzantine, Latin, and Ottoman period" would be beneficial
- The "Second World War" section has no citations
- The entirety of the Geology section has no outside citations
Some of the sources don't appear reputable, such as The Acropolis of Athens-Athensguide
Most of the retrieval dates for the references are over a decade old.

Organization and Quality writing

The layout of the page is well organized.
No noticeable grammatical errors.
The writing is fairly concise.

Images and Media

Images are well spaced and labeled.
Includes video links, as well as an interactive 3D image.

Talk Page Discussion

Most of the Talk Page discussions are several years old, but a common theme is inconsistencies in the writing. One complaint was of the article not using strong enough language, causing for doubt in some of the facts of the case, which I did notice one case of.
It is rated C-Class for 5 WikiProjects, and of Top-Importance for 4 of those WikiProjects.
Most of the conversations are regarding its history rather than its architecture, which is how it differs from my class.

Overall Impressions

This page has good formatting. It could be improved by providing more sources, which should hopefully also help clear up any inconsistencies that currently exist. Another area of improvement for adding readers' confidence in the material of the page would be to add more sound words that properly indicate the level of certainty for different theories regarding the history o the Acropolis of Athens.
Overall, I feel as though the article is decent. While there are definitely some improvements to be made, I feel as though there is a lot of important information on the page, and I like how it continues to be concise by having separate, linked Wikipedia entries for each of the major structures within.