User:Belainegreen/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: The Orator
• I have some knowledge of this work of art from learning about it in class. Therefore, I thought it would be an appropriate subject to evaluate.

Lead

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Lead evaluation:

The Lead introduces the Orator by providing the various titles it is recognized as. It goes on to concisely provide basic information such as the subject of the sculpture, medium, date of creation, the date it was discovered, and the two leading thoughts about where the sculpture was found. The description established in the Lead is discussed later on in the article under the section titled "Description." However, the two other major sections, "Inscription" and "Purpose," are not introduced in the Lead, and the debate regarding the sculpture's founding location is only addressed in the Lead. While it does have it's strengths, the Lead does not set up all the information that is going to be talked about in the article as well as does not elaborate on certain information stated in it.

Content

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Content evaluation:

The content of the article provides a well rounded information about the visual aspects of the sculpture (what it looks like, what it's made of) as well as historical information of the sculpture (information about what it would have been used for and who owned it). The fact that all of the sources used were published within the last twenty years suggests that the information provided in the article is up to date. However, there are some things missing in terms of the content. One example is that there is no mention of the ring that the man wears on his left hand, which symbolizes his high rank. Similarly, while the article does talk about the inscription on the statue, it does not give a precise location and therefore does not talk about how the band at the bottom of his toga, where the inscription is, also signifies the rank and position of the man that allows scholars to suggest he is most likely a Senator or elected official. The article also states that his mouth is open to imply that he is talking. This description implies that the man's mouth is wide open, which upon looking at the picture provided one can note is not accurate. Stating that his mouth is slightly open would fix this discrepancy.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Tone and balance evaluation:

The article is neutral since it informs the reader of the debatable topics surrounding this sculpture. In doing so, the article provides the multiple suggestions regarding the sculpture's purpose, founding location, and it's original ownership. This provides the reader with multiple readings of the sculpture. The only place where it starts to push the reader to a specific interpretation is in the sculpture's purpose. The sculpture as a votive offering is stressed more than the sculpture being an honorific statue.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Sources and references evaluation:

It appears that the sources are all from books, both physical copies or online versions implying easy access for readers to look at the source themselves. Also, the books were all published within the last twenty years which suggests that the sources reflect the current knowledge of the sculpture. There is, however, only one actual link to a book. The rest of the links are ISBN numbers that don't seem to work. Also, it seems that some of the bibliographic information is missing in the citations (some are missing publishers and publisher information for example). In general while it seems that there are good sources, the actual citation of these sources is poor.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Organization evaluation:

The article is very clear and concise. It provides the facts in a straightforward manner as well. It does not appear to have any grammatical or spelling errors, and is well broken down into sections that reflect the main points of the article. The only small critique would be to maybe change the section "Inscription" to a subsection under the section "Description" since the inscription is a visual detail of the work.

Images and Media

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Images and media evaluation:

Images have been used well in this article. Besides the picture showing the entire sculpture at the beginning, various details of the sculpture are shown in zoomed-in images, each labeled with the specific detail they are showing. While it would maybe be beneficial to show the zoomed-in image of the inscription of the statue next to the section titled "Inscription," having all of the images dow at the bottom of the page makes it easy for a reader to look through each image carefully. Based on my understanding of the image information, they seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, but I may be looking at the wrong information.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Talk page evaluation:

This article has an empty talk page, except to say that it is part of a WikiProject to cover more sculpture on Wikipedia.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Overall evaluation:

The article is written in a very neutral, fact based format that fits to the style and content expectations Wikipedia has for its articles. Similarly, it provides clear images of various parts of the sculpture, so readers can easily see all parts of this sculpture. It is a short article and is missing some information, so it could be updated to add more information from more sources. Similarly, small edits of the words used to describe the sculpture would be more accurate in representing what the sculpture looks like (it would lead to better formal analysis of the sculpture). In that regard the article is slightly underdeveloped and could use some work to make it stronger and more complete.

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: