User:Thughes8/sandbox

Evaluating [Populares]

The introduction article was put together very well. It stated who the populares were, what they were and what they were fighting for. Second part of the article starts off well, but when the wars were mentioned, it started getting a little off track and focused more on the wars than the populares. The ideology of populares uses a descriptive quote to help explain who/what the populares were about. The article is also biased, there is not one part where it says the populares being the best or right option nor a part with condescending words about the populares.

The article does a good job of representing the populares, considering it is an article about populares. It does mention some information about the opposition of the populares, the optimates, so it is understanding that the optimates would have less representation in this article.

The links in the article do work and support the cause of each statement of where they appear. Although there are some that are just large topics that are turning points for the populares that are also highlighted which just bring you to other Wikipedia articles. One of the sources is a video of a man talking about a book he wrote, but he is a political economist, historian so that would make it credible.

The information is up to date, there has been new findings that could change the populares or any significant changes that relates to them. The article could discuss more controversial cases that they might have had.

On the talk page, the relationship between populares and optimates is discussed. The length of each and reasoning are both identified as for why it is as long and descriptive as it is. Also the discussion between populism and popularism is discussed and that popularism should have a better description.

This article discusses the populares with more definition behind who they were and what they did during their time. While in class, the topic has always been 'how it has affected society and government today.'