User:Adrianna.Cormier/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: Archaeoastronomy
 * I have selected this article as I have never read anything on archaeoastronomy, and I was curious to learn. This article is very detailed and informative.

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 clearly describes the article's topic--it is an article explaining what the study of archaeoastronomy is. It does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, and it does include information that is not again mentioned in the article. The Lead is also overly detailed.

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 of the article is relevant to the topic, but most of the information does not seem to be up-to-date. There is always room for more information, but this article does not seem to be missing any valuable information.

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
This article is strictly informative. There do not seem to be any biased claims, over- or under-represented viewpoints, or attempts to persuade the reader toward or against any position.

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
There are dozens of references throughout this article, all backed up by reliable sources that reflect the available literature on the topic. Most of the sources are not current, but the links do work.

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
Although the article is incredibly informative, it is rather wordy. It is not concise, but it is mostly easy to read. It is grammatically correct, and there are no apparent spelling errors. The article is broken down into sections and sub-sections that reflect the major points of archaeoastronomy.

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 contain images that aid in the understanding of the topic, and they are well-captioned. The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and they are laid out in a visually appealing way. There is a video that is more distracting than informative.

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?

Talk page evaluation
Much of the conversation on the Talk page pertains to the enhancement of source links, but there is a piece asking about the necessity of the Maya video trailer in the article. The article is rated as one of the history good articles, and it has been part of the following five WikiProjects: WikiProject Archaeology, Anthropology, History of Science, Astronomy, and Astrology.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 strengths of this article are the incredible wealth of information and the quality of citations. It could be improved through a more concise sharing of the information, but it is well-developed and rather complete.

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: