User:Bioarchaeo/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Bioarchaeology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I've chosen to evaluate this article because it is my field and I feel generally qualified to evaluate it. Additionally, the article is rated start-class or B-class by many relevant broader WikiProjects and of mid-importance, so it would benefit from additional improvement and evaluation. Off the bat, I was unimpressed by some of the citations used (there are plenty of academic sources available but the author chose personal blogs in many cases instead, a choice I wouldn't make. Additionally their opening statement on the origins of bioarchaeology struck me as slightly off (likely because again, they cited from a blog instead of from more reliable sources). This was enough to make me curious to evaluate the rest of it.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section - The lead section does not provide a concise overview but rather just talks about the origin of the term Bioarchaeology. There is no overview of the topics addressed in the article sub-headers nor is there a discussion of the overall topic. There should probably be a sub-heading added titled 'Origins of Bioarchaeology' and a new lead section written all together.

Content - The content is relevant to the topic, but I would argue sparse overall. There is a lot more that could be included and fleshed out. I would personally include more about theoretical approaches in Bioarchaeology (or link to another Wiki article tackling those topics). I would also add a section on Violence + Trauma, a section on Paleopathology (broadly). The stress indicators sections would definitely fall under this broad section, possibly mechanical activity indicators section too. The paleopath section would need to have information about differential diagnosis. The aDNA and ethics sections definitely need more fleshing out. The citations aren't terrible but there are definitely some blogs cited that should be replaced with more reliable sources. Additionally, the academic references could be updated a bit - there's definitely room to include more recent academic publications in some of the sections (most notably in the equity and equality section). I also found the equity and equality section poorly organized and confusing in terms of its phrasing. Clarification is needed there.

Tone and Balance - Overall, the article remains relatively neutral. I don't think there are any glaring biases. My only critique on balance is that the ethics section is sparse and only discusses NAGPRA (in poor detail at that). In reality, bioarchaeological ethics are much more complex and perspectives and reviews of the ethics of the field are well published upon. In the discussion of NAGPRA, indigenous perspectives should be presented.

Sources and References - The article includes many references, but I did notice statements throughout that need citations. I also noticed a few personal blog citations I do not think are reliable enough to include. Furthermore, some sentences appear to be directly copied or nearly identical to sentences in the sources they originate from - this violates Wikipedia's plagiarism policies. I think overall the sources are diverse, but imperfectly so - I have noted some places where I think other voices could be included in the sections above. I also think this article could be updated to include some more recently published articles (i.e. articles <10 years old). This isn't absolutely necessary bout would provide more up to date perspectives on some issues.

Organization and Writing Quality - I don't think the quality of this article is particularly good. There are clear grammatical issues and some of the sections are very confusingly organized. It appears the writer generally struggles with tying things together/creating coherent narrative arcs through sections. This leads to confusing assemblages of statements that aren't clearly connected to one another/related to one another. This was especially the case in the equality/equity in bioarchaeology section. I also think the overall organization of the sub-headings could be better (see 'Content' evaluation for major critiques).

Images and Media - This article includes no images and would definitely benefit from the inclusion of illustrations/images. I am unsure if those would be able to be sourced from articles in journals or published books due to copyright considerations.

Talk Page- The talk page was well populated, there are definitely points of confusion. A lot of the talk page debate stems around organization and potential to merge with other articles (which I would not support) - the articles in question are definitely worth mentioning as sub-articles or articles that could be nested under the 'Bioarchaeology' article broadly, but I see no reason why they should be collapsed entirely. The article is rated Start-Class or B-Class by different Wiki Projects. I would agree with the Start-Class assesments. It needs more work. My biggest surprise was the number of people commenting on the article with openers/justifications like "I'm not qualified to edit this" or "This is not my area of expertise" or "I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable" - this doesn't make sense to me. Anyone can edit Wikipedia content, so by definition everyone is able to comment/opine/contribute who wants to do the due diligence with respect to research, either own this, or, if you really don't feel its your place to give input, don't comment!!

Overall Impressions - Overall, this read a little clunkily and seemed sparsely populated in some areas. The article is a good start, but it's underdeveloped. I'm surprised this article is so recent, as the discipline has been around for ages. I would add more content to many of the subsections and also add additional sub-headings as someone who works and conducts research in this field.