User:CrustyToast/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Hyrax Hill

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I thought the name sounded interesting, and I had hopes there would be something to critique with a lesser known site/subject, opposed to a subject such as "Middle Stone Age."

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The intro sentence explains the subject in a concise manner. The lead section does not include any information about the section "Gumban nomenclature" and the "Archaeology" subsection, "Other archaeological areas," is not mentioned, although this may not be as necessary. There is information in the lead section about how the site is named after a small mammal called a hyrax and that there is a museum at the site now-both points are not mentioned in the article. In my opinion, the lead contains extraneous information about the hyrax-animal and the museum's location. Perhaps a new section labeled "Modern area" would help this information fit with the rest of the lead section better. It is lacking information about Gumgan nomenclature and pottery entirely.

Content:

The article's content is relevant to Hyrax Hill. I would say the content is generally up to date. Even though the most recent source cited is from 2007, I was only able to find two papers more recent on JSTOR that seemed relevant in any way to the site. Technically, content on the hyrax name and the museum is missing from the article. The article does mention when the Leakey's work regarding the site became outdated, but I don't think the article represents underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance:

The tone seems fair. Maybe the Leakeys are focused on a bit much, but it seems that they did most of the research regarding the site. I would say no viewpoints are regarded as minority viewpoints, so maybe the "outdated" Leakey research mentioned in the article could be less biased in its presentation. Because of this, the article may be trying to persuade the reader, but I am not sure.

Sources:

There is no source for the paragraph "Hyrax Hill is the location of Hyrax Hill Prehistoric Site and Museum." Besides this, everything else seems sourced properly. The sources are current. There is a focus on the Leakeys and John Sutton, but other authors are referenced. While Mary Leakey was a reference used, more diverse authors could be used if they are available. I checked three links and they all worked.

Organization:

The article didn't have any spelling or grammar errors that I could locate, but I do think the points I mentioned above under "Lead Section" show that the article needs to be organized a bit better.

Images and Media:

The images do not violate copyright. One image is of the Leakeys working on Hirax Hill. Perhaps a picture of just the site would be a good additional photograph. There is also a photograph of modern Zebu cows, because these cows are believed to have been at site 2 on Hyrax Hill. I do not think that this photograph is relevant or helpful to the article. In terms of layout, the images do not interfere with the flow of the article.

Talk Page:

Only one person commented on the talk page in 2014. The article is part of 4 Wikiprojects.

Overall Impressions:

The overall status of the article I would rate as 85% complete. The article is more than a "stub" article because the information presented seems up to date, but not quite fully organized. A strength of the article is that it explains the Leakey's research, but also explains that their research is outdated and presents newer information to the reader. The article could be improved by fixing the Lead Section, adding a citation for the location of the museum on Hyrax Hill, removing the photograph of the Zebu cows, and adding a "Modern" section that can explain that the hyrax mammal is declining in the area and that there is now a museum located there. I would say the article is underdeveloped.