User:BeeCandelaria/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Monte Verde

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I've heard of Monte Verde before as it may be an alternative to the Bering Straight theory for migration into the Americas.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section of this article looks well-thought out. It concisely describes the relevance of Monte Verde, including controversy surrounding it, which also includes citations. It could include small details from the lower sections, but in the interest of not repeating in the article, not much more should be added. The information in the lead reflects the information in the later sections in a concise way.

Content

The content of the article reflects the issue well. I do think that it may have too much information, or at least has information that is not incredibly detailed, making it seem irrelevant, such as the "Diffusion" section under the "History" heading. Similarly, the "Comparison to other early American sites" is not fully fleshed out.

Tone and Balance

The article's tone appears neutral and represents both those who think that Monte Verde could be an alternative from the Bering Straight theory and those who are hesitant to make that assertion. I'm not sure if there is local history surrounding the Monte Verde site, but if there is, it is not added into the article. The article does more heavily weigh on the idea that this disproves that the Bering Strait theory is the only way people could have gotten into the Americas, but they have supporting information as well.

Sources and References

There are a lot of sources and references for this article. The links work and the information is up-to-date.

Organization and Writing Quality

The writing and language is both professional and accessible.

Image and Media

Not many images are used for this article. More images of artifacts or stratigraphy of the site would supplement the article well.

Talk page discussion

The talk page seems well thought out, with many people commenting, though some of them are pretty rude.

Overall

The article could use more information on the actual finds, including pictures. More information as to how this site compares to other American sites should be explained, as well as information on the diffusion and acceptance of the site. However, the article does have a good start, which flows nicely through the article, it could just use more information.