User:BavanR00/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Pinnacle Point

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I noticed it was relatively short, with only 3 very small sections after the lead. I wanted to see what has been written about the site, even if it is limited in its scope. At a brief glance, the site has geoarchaeological significance, being tied to human activity during an Ice Age time period. I suspect a comprehensive history of the site includes depositional history, environmental factors, and ecological factors given purported evidence of shellfish -- if this research exists at the moment. I also chose this article because during class, we discussed how North African archaeology and human origins work is often overrepresented in both academia and on Wikipedia, so I thought it would be helpful to look into the gaps on a page about those topics in South Africa.

Lead Section
The lead section does briefly outline two subsections, however, no indication of its establishment as a heritage site is given in the lead. There are also a few ambiguous claims in the lead section, which I feel should not be in a summary of the site itself. More details on location, perhaps, would be pertinent. There are also some grammatical errors in the lead.

Content
The content does not appear up to date, but I am not familiar with the subject. The newest publication cited is from 2010, but this could speak more to the lack of research in the area. However, all of the content is relevant to the article's topic. The article does deal with an equity gap in Wikipedia, being an article about an African Archaeological site. Even on the topics that are addressed, I would like to see more detail:


 * With regards to research history -- what questions were being asked, how long did field work go on for, is it ongoing?
 * With regards to implications for modern behavior -- what about this site in particular is unique? Other sites are noted as having pigment evidence, but the modern behavior of exploiting a food source appears to be integral to research on this site, and needs more detailing

Tone
The article appears to push the view that this is indeed a site of evidence of human origin, going as far as tying a nearby site to this one, without much association or relation. Overall, however, the tone is fairly neutral and seems to represent the available body of research.

Organization and Writing Quality
The writing in the article is concise, but there are some sentences that drag on. This is true especially in the lead section, where being concise is key. There are some grammatical errors, as well. Some content does appear out-of-place, and could be supplanted by more information on Pinnacle Point itself.

Images
Only 1 map and 1 image are provided, but both add to the understanding of the site and excavation processes. The picture appears to have been uploaded through Creative Commons, and follows citation protocol.

Talk Page
Interestingly, the page appeared to have been initially listed as "Pinnacle Point Man." Amidst a comment about remains not actually being found at the site, the title of the page was changed to "Pinnacle Point". Beyond this exchange and one piece of anecdotal evidence from a tourist, the talk page is largely unused. The article is a part of WikiProject South Africa, and is a Start-Class article, meaning it is in need of more editing. Interestingly, there are many marks of low-importance, despite papers being published on the site through the 2010s.

Wikipedia seems to discuss the topic more in terms of specific pieces of evidence and sources, taking a more information-based approach than looking to add information. That being said, this talk page lacks discussions, and not much can be gleaned from 3 comments.

Overall Impressions
The article has an interesting start on a few topics that should receive more expansion with up-to-date research. The article is strong in its imagery, geographic information, and concise writing. It seems to attempt to synthesize research as opposed to providing statistics and data that the reader might get lost in. That being said, the article needs to be more comprehensive and represent more recent work, as well as conflicting views on the depositional evidence in the area (given glacial history). The article is underdeveloped but provides a good starting point for future editors.