User:Gabyflores27/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: Conradin Bible
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I have chosen this article to evaluate because I come across this article when doing research for my Wikipedia project and thought that it needed some help. The Conradin Bible also seemed like an interesting piece of art.

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 in the Conradin Bible Wikipedia article does not have an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic because the sentence states that the manuscript is "likely produced" in Italy, which is a guess rather than a fact backed up by sources. The lead section doesn't include a description of the article's major sections because there isn't any other major sections included. The lead includes very brief information about the article, the rest of the article does not have any new information. It is not at all over detailed, it needs more reliable sources of information. A rule of thumb in Wikipedia is that the lead have at least four well constructed paragraphs and this lead only has one paragraph that is really short and underdeveloped.

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 provided in the article is relevant to the topic since the author explains that the Conradin Bible is named after King Conradin of Sicily. The author also provided the readers with a proposed artist of the Conradin Bible, Oderisi da Gubbio. The content is up-to-date since the author provides the recent location of the Conradin Bible, which is at the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore, Maryland. There is an abundance of content that is missing, for example, information about the 164 fragments of the bible.

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 does have a neutral tone since the author does not use statements like "the best" or "the most important". There is no bias found in this article since the information given is basic information about the Bible rather than a description or a particular position regarding the piece. There are viewpoints that are underrepresented, for example, the author only provides one sentence regarding the artist of the Conradin Bible. I believe more information about Oderisi da Gubbio needs to be added. The article does not try to persuade the reader because there is no bias.

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

The facts in the article are not backed up with reliable secondary sources of information. The sources used in the article are all from Wikipedia, which do not go into detail about the information given. The first source provided in the references section is from the book called "The Oxford Companion to the Book" by Michael F. Suarez which is used as a means to provide the current location of the Conradin Bible (Walters Art Gallery). The second source provided in the references section is a link in Italian backing up the mention of who the author of the Conradin Bible was (Oderisi da Gubbio). The sources aren't current either since one is from 2010 and the other from 1997. The links provided work but they aren't of good quality.

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 not well written since it sounds like the author did not know much about the topic before writing about it. The use of "likely" and "usually associated" makes the article seem unorganized and of less value. The article is an easy read since there isn't a lot of information regarding the topic. There aren't any spelling errors in the small paragraph. The article isn't well-organized either, since there isn't sections provided and imbalanced sections is a sign of an article that needs improvement.

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

The article only includes one image of the topic. The image is of one of the 164 fragments from the Conradin Bible. The image displays a man wearing a white robe and a blue background. The image is too small but it is expandable once clicking on it. The image does contain a good caption description it as a "masculine figure". The image also adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations since it is in the public domain. The image is appealing and beautiful but there needs to be more images of the rest of the fragments and the front of the Conradin Bible as well.

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

In the Talk page of my article states that the page is within the scopes of Wikiproject Books but once I clicked on the conversations, there wasn't any talk relating to the Conradin Bible. Rather people were discussing their interests in certain books and literature. The article is rated as Stub-Class, which means that the article isn't considered as reliable or provides a strong overview of the topic. This is why this is a great article to work on since there's a lot one can do to improve it.

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's overall status is pretty low. The sources are lacking and the tone needs to be more factual rather than using "likely". The article's strengths are that it is an easy read and anyone will be able to understand it. The article can be improved by using secondary sources and incorporating those sources correctly. The author states how the Conradin Bible has Byzantine influence but does not provide a source, making it seem like it was an assumption rather than a fact. The overall article is poorly developed since there aren't any other sections for the topic.

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: My article's talk page did not let me type an evaluation, it would only let me read the thread but a question I would ask regarding this article would be, Where are the rest of the fragmentations of the Conradin Bible located?