User:Vyyshen/Evaluate an Article
 | 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]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose it because ornamentation in architecture, textiles, and manuscripts plays a large role in Islamic art.
Evaluate the article
[edit](Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
The lead section introduces the definition and confine of 'ornament,' although I recommend listing examples and outlining the article.
The article is dense and at times hard to follow with its wide coverage. It would be wise to use a chronological, thematic, or material for organization.
Furthermore, a section of the article disrupts the worldwide viewpoint and focuses instead on Roman ornament.
The images are mostly Western (Roman, Rococo, Baroque, and Renaissance).
There are comments on the lack of depth in the article and some biases/personal comments.
I do not like the non-accessible nature of this article. It feels robust in its global coverage yet it is not organized by culture. To improve, I would outline the article better in the first section and start with a chronological overview of ornamentation in multiple cultures and then make connections.
I like the inclusion of modern ornamentation.