User:ArjunChikkappa/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Norse colonization of North America

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

This article was chosen for evaluation as it the article I will update/ improve in the upcoming weeks (as part of an course assignment). This article explores the only widely accepted event(s) of Europeans in the Americas pre-Columbus; because of this, it not only receives a high volume of traffic, but is also a highly important online source concerning the history of the Americas.

My preliminary impression was of an article that had the basics/ structure of the topics presented down, but could use expansion and updates in a few few areas. The article's context are somewhat unbalanced — with large amounts of content in some sections while leaving others somewhat barren.

Evaluate the article
(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 of this article is almost satisfactory: it offers a brief synopsis of almost all of the articles main points/ sections. Aside from this, it does a decent job of summarizing the article's content, however, it is somewhat excessive in it's use of dates within the lead.

While the content is generally satisfactory, it does have a few short comings. Some sections of the article of lacking in content, specifically, the sections "Vinland" and "Pseudo-History" are lacking in content, and are only fractional compared to others. This creates an imbalance in content; with some sections offers deep explorations and insights into their respective topics, while others only providing brief a synopsis. Specially, the article only briefly mentions the Norse settlements in North America, and offers little information concerning this topic. Addiontally, while the article mentions / links the various pseudo-scientific "discoveries" or "theories," it does a somewhat inadequate job in exploring them.

The organization and media shown are clearly well thought out and easy to understand/ relevant. There is no present copyright violation or any other issue like such.

Concerning sources, the article offers proper citation/ sources for all but one presented fact. However, various numbers/ dates, all pertaining to dates about perspective settlements, are somewhat out of date. The article contains no issues with tone, bias, or forwarding fringe ideas; the author appears to be neutral and have no vested interest in any particular argument.