User:Bobadillag/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Name of article: Pseudoarchaeology
 * I choose to evaluate pseudoarchaeology because it seemed really interesting. Pseudoarchaeology is a subfield within archaeology. I wanted to learn more about the topic because of the different ways pseudoarchaeologists interpret artifacts and theories without the scientific method, in comparison to archaeology.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead introduction of the article was a bit overly detailed to an extent where it focuses on the different interpretations of topics such as artifacts, archaeological sites, or theories within pseudoarchaeology. The article does give a small description of the major sections, briefly talking about the interpretations in the field and how people visualize pseudoarchaeology. Everything stated in the Lead is present throughout the article.

Lead evaluation
The Lead of the article was well-written and gave a good introduction about pseudoarchaeology.

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content is relevant to the topic of pseudoarchaeology. As-far-as I know the content in the article is up to date. All the content that is present in the article corresponds with pseudoarchaeology and how it is practiced.

Content evaluation
The content is very thorough and heavily informative. The article is clear with stating facts about pseudoarchaeology and the different evaluations of the field. There was a lot to learn about the field of pseudoarchareology and the evaluations of specific artifacts or theories.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral and does not have heavy biases. The article's viewpoints are represented equally, stating clear facts about pseudoarchaeology and pseudoarchaeological beliefs. A part of the article where it talks about characteristics might persuade the reader to favor the field of pseudoarchaeology rahter than archaeology, is how pseudoarchaeology does not practice the scientific method as traditional archaeology.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance are neutral throughout the article. Based on the section about the use of the scientific method (or lack thereof) in pseudoarchaeology could be more favored by the reader rather than the methodology of archaeology. The article talks about how an archaeologist says that pseudoarchaeologists do not understand the concept of using the scientific method.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

All the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source. The sources from the article do reflect pseudoarcheology and additional information about the field. One source that is most recent is from 2018, but the rest of the resources range from the 1960s to 2010. Almost all the links, that I clicked on, worked.

Sources and references evaluation
I think that if there were more recent sources about pseudoarchaeology would help benefit the article. By getting a source that is recent it can benefit the article by adding more information of topics or theories being talked about today.

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is well-written, concise, clear and easy to read. There are no grammatical or spelling errors and is well-organized. The article has different sections pertaining to pseudoarchaeology and the different examples and responses within the field.

Organization evaluation
A thing that I would change about the article is location of the description section. I think that moving that portion above the characteristic section would make more sense. In my opinion, by moving the description part would help the reader understand a bit more about pseudoarchaeology itself before the different characteristics and interpretations used in the field.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article has two pictures of famous authors who have written about pseudoarchaeology on the top right of the page. The images are small, clear, and well-captioned. Both of the images follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Images and media evaluation
The pictures of the two authors/theorists could be a bit bigger, but changing the size is not necessary. One thing that the article should have is more pictures that are associated with pseudoarchaeology. Showing pictures of some artifacts, archaeological sites, tv shows, movies or books that relate to pseudoarchseology could make the reader curious about pseudoarchaeology or things that relate to the field. Most of the examples of movies or books have links which is perfectly fine, but I think that adding some images would make the article less text based.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The conversations in the talk page varied on which specific things were involved with pseudoarchaeology. Most people added/removed information from the article and gave good reasons why they make their decision. Some of the conversations discussed how specific people or facts should be removed and put into a different field of archaeology or anthropology itself. The article is listed as a C-Class Archaeology Article.

Talk page evaluation
It was interesting to see different people talk about specific things that do or do not relate to pseudoarchaeology. Most people argued whether people or topics should be placed under pseudoarchaeology or in another field within archaeology and/or anthropology.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article is well-developed, neutral and has no heavy biases. Like previously stated in the tone and balance section of this evaluation the use or lack of the scientific method in pseudoarchaeology could persuade the reader to want to do pseudoarchaeology rather than archaeology itself. The main strength the article has is listing the different examples of interpretations of pseudoarcheology. An improvement of the article would be to add more pictures about the topic and adding more recent information/resources. I think that the article is well-developed

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: