User:Cbeedy/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Cerberus

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

One of the main reasons I have chosen this article to evaluate is because I have always liked Greek Mythology. My first impression of this article I feel that this is important because it allows for a base of people beliefs such as religions We can see this in most of these with a battle good against evil. Some mythologies also help to explain differences in seasons or other worldly phenomenon. I feel this article was done very well. The fact that it explains the origins of the myth, the different iterations of how other author's have perceived these stories an another reason I was drawn to this article.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section:

The contributors did a good job with the lead sentence to let the reader know how Cerberus derived from Greek Mythology and the primary purpose that this monster had in the myths. This also clearly describes the topic of the overall article well. I feel that this also does a good job on showing the articles major section by mentioning the 12 labors of Heracles. The lead sentence does not show any information that is not present in the article. Each piece is easily found further into the article. To be the lead sentence shows just the right about of information without being overly informative.

Content:

I feel that article's content is very relevant to the topic overall. We can see this because all the information supplied can relate back to Cerberus. The content within this article is currently being edited and improving on the information. The last edit shows it was done on February 1st 2021. I feel that everything showing in the content belongs in this article since everything relates back to Cerberus and the Myth behind it. This also shows how we can rationalize Cerberus in what would explain his creation. Such as poisonous aconite plants, other say that he was not a dog at all, this was a misconception because Cerberus was never described by Homer and it is said the "Hound of Hades" was none other than a snake that could kill you in a single bit. I do not think this article deals with equity gaps since these are stories that have been told and reimaged over time or tales of heroism and to explain the unexplainable.

Tone and Balance:

I feel that this article was written in a neutral point of view. This is due to explaining the different versions of the stories and how they came to be. With more information being presented, this shows more than one side of topic and different points of views. I do not feel any of the sections are written heavily towards a bias or particular position. These articles was backed up by cited sources and leave the reader to draw their own conclusion from the facts presented. I feel that the viewpoints in these articles are equally presented with the right amount explaining the source of the topic content for each section. The contributors have also done a good job explaining the different viewpoints and why they are in the articles by citing the links to the sources of that information that is being presented. This topic does not really fit into a minority viewpoint so I feel it is irrelevant to talk about it. This article does not try to sway anyone from reading it to a particular side, I feel this was done fairly explaining each of the sections and where the story differs from one another and why.

Sources and References:

All the facts in these articles are backed up with citations and links to other articles on Wikipedia to find out more information on that source. The sources for my article I have chosen seem very through and since this is a story can reflect in other available literature on the topic. I feel for what this topic is about the sources are current and being updated when a need is for them. The sources of the original works have been written by diverse historical authors such as Homer, Plato, Pindar, Stesichorus, as well as modern day authors. Each one of them having their own take on their version of Cerberus. There are some other peer reviewed articles that talk about Cerberus such as Shapiro, H. (1983). "Hȇrȏs Theos": The Death and Apotheosis of Herakles. The Classical World, 77(1), 7-18. doi:10.2307/4349488 and websites such as Greek Mythology.com Information seems to be everywhere. However, I feel that what is covered in these articles are very similar what you will find elsewhere staying true to the original origins of these stories. The links in these articles that I have checked, all brought me to the source of where the information presented was found.

Organization and writing quality:

The whole article of was concise and easy to read. This made it easier to understand the information that was presented. These articles appeared to have no grammatical or spelling errors. They have in the past and if you look in the history, you can see some have been found and updated with the correct spelling of the words. The Cerberus article is well organized and broke down into topics pertaining to the information being presented. This makes it easier for the readers and not get lost in an information overload. This also help when looking for a specific idea or bit of information that relates to a certain part of the topic.

Images and Media:

Yes this article has images that relates well to the topic. These range from illustrations, pottery, and painting. Each of the images are cited with the source and the title to the artwork and links to find out more about the piece or artist. From what is posted all the images look to adhere to Wikipedia copyright regulations. These are mostly from museum pictures of the pieces or artwork from public domain. I feel the images are laid out symmetrical and does not take away for the main written content of the pages. These alternate from either the start of article on the left or on the right side with inline text.

Talk page discussion:

The types of talk going on behind the scenes are Removing fiction cruft. This means removing references from video games where Cerberus appeared and making this more on Cerberus as itself. There is a a talk of making a new section just Cerberus's appearance in other works. The was brought up for the people that were displeased they could not make video game references to the mythological creature. There also was a thought did the heads of Cerberus have their own names. Also there was a debate over the pronunciation of how to say Cerberus. This is a C-Class article of interest in three other WikiProjects such as WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, and WikiProject Mythology. This article relates to what we talked about in class by being collaborative online document that is open source where everyone that comes to it has access. With the information being continually updated, this is also an unbias article that makes for a excellent reference piece.

Overall impressions:

The overall status of this article is a source of information for people that are unfamiliar with Greek Mythology's Cerberus and those that knew the story, but were unaware of the other tales that were written about it. I came out learning a lot of information that I did not know previously reading this article. I feel this has a lot of strengths. The way the people can learn more about other figures mentioned thought the article, the artwork used makes it more enjoyable to see a visual what is being talked about. Also the flow of the article felt that it prepared you for the next section of the article due to how organized it was. Also, keeping the article up to date makes the piece as a valuable source of information. To be honest, I am not sure what could improve this article. I feel that the way it was written this should be getting a good status soon because it is also a level-5 vital article in Philosophy and gets almost 2000 daily views. I would assess the article in the current state as well developed.