User:Chase2424/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ethnography

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose ethnography because it applies to research on a variety of subjects within anthropology/sociocultural anthropology. It matters because it is going to be helpful to have a better grasp of what ethnography is or isn't. My preliminary impression of the page is that it is very well written.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and not overly detailed in my opinion.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that was visible during a brief review.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? That is a difficult question in that it could and does cover certain groups that are underrepresented.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Possibly, the research is forming a position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Potentially, there may not be enough viewpoints from minority researchers.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Not exactly
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? This would be a very extensive study of this article so I can't answer this question.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, they appear to be current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes and yes it seems like that is true.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) It is almost primarily peer-reviewed source material
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links work.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes to all of the above.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is well-organized

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? ?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are many conversations going on. It seems like this is a very active page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a level-4 vital article and is of interest to the Sociology and Anthropology WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It is thorough in a different way

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Very well maintained
 * What are the article's strengths? A variety of information, well organized, cited from peer-reviewed journal articles
 * How can the article be improved? Possibly it can be improved in certain areas by adding new sources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This is a very well developed article.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting