 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating? edit
[[1]]
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate? edit
Key example of an early Roman portrait, and one of the very few bronze ones to survive. It's a good initial summary, although perhaps some more connections to Roman history and art history could be made.
Evaluate the article edit
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
Everything is relevant to the article.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
The antiquarian section is good, although if there's an example of the first drawings of the bust out there that are copyright-free they would be wonderful to have. The difference between Lucius Junius Brutus and Marcus Junius Brutus could maybe be explained a bit further. In some pictures the bust is missing an eye, and if there's any research on the history of restorations, that would be useful information to add, too.
The section on modern interpretations is a bit compressed, especially the final sentence, which rests a bit heavily on direct quotation.
Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations?
The sources cited seem to have a reasonable balance of male and female writers. The cited sources could probably be drawn from a more diverse array of scholars and publications, however.
What else could be improved?
Devoting a little more space to the modern interpretations of the bust, and, in particular their significance. What do scholars see the bust as evidence of in the 3rd century, or if they think it's antiquarian, why was it made?
Side views of the bust would also be great to have.