User:C.lof22/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (Mortuary archaeology)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I found this article to be a very interesting topic while also requiring more work to make it a more reliable article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, there is a sentence that clearly describes what mortuary archaeology is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, there is a sentence describing the main points that are contained in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * yes, there are topics described in the first paragraph that are not clearly talked about within the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, I do believe that the content of the article is relevant to the topic of mortuary archaeology.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content does seem as though it is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think that there could be more information regarding how mortuary archaeology answers questions about the past.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No the article does not appear to be biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, most facts within the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes, they are thorough
 * Are the sources current?
 * They are fairly current with sources from 2016 but there are many that date back to the 1980s.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * yes, there are a variety of sources from a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is fairly well written and concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes it is well organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is only one image contained in the article, but I do not think that it allows for further understanding of the material.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, I do believe it is well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No, I think it is not visually appealing as there is only one image contained and does not do anything to support the article. It seems oddly placed and random.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are no conversations related to the representation of this topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as C-Class and is a part of the WikiProject Archaeology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * I think that it does include a lot of material that we have discussed in class but I think the article could go more in depth.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I think that article is well-written and concise but could use more detail and explanation in some areas.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The organization of the article is well-done.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It could use more detail in some areas as some important topics that are discussed are not thorough enough in my opinion.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it is well-developed but there are definitely a few areas for improvement.

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: