User:Arami04/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Traditional ecological knowledge

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I found it related to the topics developed in the course (ANT 450). It matters because the integration of traditional ecological knowledge from indigenous people to sustainable natural resources management could be a strategy that will benefit the stakeholders involved in the long term. The article is well balanced in terms of the number of sections and sub-headings. However, there are paragraphs without citations and (according to Wikipedia) sections containing close paraphrasing.

Lead section
A 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.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No.

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Probably overly detailed

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.

Is the content up-to-date? Yes

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia 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.

Is the article from a neutral point of view? No.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes.

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
A 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.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most of them

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.

Are the sources current? No

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) I found several peer-review articles

Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No (that I can see)

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is not well balanced in terms of the amount of text per section

Images and Media
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but I did not find the images very useful and integrated with the topic.

Are images well-captioned? Yes.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Most of them

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Talk page discussion
The 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.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are conversations about spelling, capitalization, as well as how to improve the tone, citations, and references,.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It's a C-level article. It's part of 6 WikiProjects.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This article seems to has a lot of good content and is easy to read

Overall impressions
What is the article's overall status? C-level class

What are the article's strengths? Good amount of citations

How can the article be improved? Not neutral tone in many sections

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think the article is comprehensive. It could improve by adding more examples of indigenous people from other countries, in order to expand their claims.