User:AAbiad/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: History of human migration (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Much of the opening of The Woman Warrior was about the story of the narrator's parents' migration to the United States. I was curious about reading an article on this topic on a much, much larger scale.

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 does include an introductory sentence that briefly defines human migration. It then provides a rough chronological outline of migration over time; the article follows this outline. For such a broad topic, I think the lead is concise and easy to read. However, it does employ the unusual term "Landnahme," which is not explained or mentioned again in the article.

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 article's content does appear to be relevant to the topic. However, there does not seem to be content related to any events after the Partition of India; it feels like it should address, or at least allude to, immigrants and refugees today. I did not find any content that did not belong.

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 seem to be largely neutral, but it seems to be heavily focused on Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. There is almost no mention of the Americas. However, the article does not seem heavily biased or political; it feels expository rather than persuasive.

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
Not everything is backed up by a reliable secondary source. For example, the statistic "estimates based on industry sectors mainly employing migrants suggest that there are around 100 million circular migrants in India" does not have a citation attached. However, the sources that are present do seem to be current and reputable (from the Encyclopedia Britannica, university websites, academic journals, etc.), and all of the links I clicked on worked. Since this is such a broad topic, it's difficult to say that they reflect all available literature, but they do reflect a wide range.

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 does feel well-written and concise, especially considering its vast scope. I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors. The article is organized chronologically, which makes sense, given that it is a history. However, the "Contemporary history (1960s to present)" section is pretty much empty -- it only contains links to other articles.

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 does include very helpful maps showing migration patterns in the past. The maps are well-captioned; even before zooming in on them, you know what they will show. The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations (many are originals), and they are colorful and appealing.

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
There is one question posted on the talk page, similar to the question I asked: "Shouldn't there be a section on recent crises and migrations?" The only other thing I can see on the talk page is a request for other users to review the addition of an archive. No real conversations appear, so it's difficult to comment on how the topic is discussed. The article is part of multiple WikiProjects, including the WikiProjects Archaeology, Anthropology, History, and Ethnic Groups.

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 seems to have a pretty solid foundation. Its descriptions of early human migration are accompanied by good visuals and lots of citations. However, I think the article needs to be better developed -- it should be updated to reflect the present realities of migration, and it should also pay more attention to Africa and the Americas.

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: