User:Anthropologist20/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: (link) Burru
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen this article to evaluate, because there is a lot of information missing.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No, this article just begins right off with the definition of what Burru is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, this is not included because there is only one section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead only includes a very small amount of information.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise, and almost too short.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, it is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Somewhat, this article was last edited about a year ago. (October 2019).
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, there is a lot of information missing. Like what drums were used, When did it begin. Why did it begin. Etc.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, this population is very underrepresented.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, this is a neutral article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are none.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, there are none.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, not at all.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The sources are a little outdated.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, not at all.
 * Are the sources current? No, they are at least 10 years old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No, there are only two sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all of the links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is well written, but is short.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, not at all.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, there is only one section.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, no images were provided.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No engaging conversations were being held.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? No, it is not.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This article is very short and missing a lot of information.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Very short, it needs a lot of work.
 * What are the article's strengths? It has the definition, and the reason it exists.
 * How can the article be improved? Give examples, add images, cite images, find more recent sources, etc.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is poorly developed.

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: