User:Athompki/sandbox

Article Evaluation for Early History of South Africa

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? The article only talks a bit about South Africa and two groups but doesn't have an adequate summary. It says it covers the earliest history of South Africa to the beginnings of European colonization in the 17th century, but the article ends at "Bantu expansion", so the lead section is misleading. There is also a lack of depth in the information. It's descriptive a small way but very brief.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is majority neutral with no heavy bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Information going beyond Bantu expression is missing, such as early colonization. There also isn't talk about other groups within the region, geography, or ages after the lower paleolithic. The article could use a lot of expansion.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The links in the article do work, but not every claim is sourced or supported such as this sentence "the San had great respect for the land, and their lifestyle had low environmental impact, allowing them to sustain their way of life for years without leaving much archaeological evidence".
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? The facts are referenced, but none of the references are cited. The linked sources are unbiased.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Most of the information is reasonably out of date, with a few more recent sources. The article could use a map or two and more pictures.
 *  Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are no conversations on the talk page except for one unsigned comment.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated start class on the quality scale and top/high importance for a wiki project. This means the article is in need of developing and incomplete and possibly doesn't cite reliable sources.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In class, South Africa is talked about in depth when it comes to the life of early homo sapiens including language, ways of life and early expansions. However, it doesn't over-represent any unnecessary information and doesn't under-represent what's being discussed in the book. However, with the goal of Wikipedia to talk about South Africa's history in detail, the articles within the project are lacking and unorganized.

Athompki (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)athompki