User:Cwolffu/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Chachapoya culture

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article provides a detailed history of a pre-Columbian civilization culture and includes a section on Archeological sites, a section that I though might be helpful to visualize in case that's something I want to include in the articles I edit.

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, it also includes an alternative name for the Chachapoyas which can be helpful for anyone researching them using that alternative name.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * One of the most important sections in the article covers the history of their relationship with the Incas, and there are two sentences in the lead section that concisely introduce the importance of that section. However, it doesn't mention anything related to popular culture, a section that concludes the article and might have benefitted from being introduced by a sentence in the lead.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * All the information in the lead section is relevant to what the article covers.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * No

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?
 * Each bullet point correctly corresponds to a section heading, but the history section is not up-to-date and may not be necessary sine there is a sub-section about the culture's history with the Inca's and another section about it's appearances and origins.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The history content is missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article is about an indigenous population that would later be underrepresented in

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, the author does not use any language to convey bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the sections that the author chooses to elaborate on succeed in keeping a neural tone.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * There were none
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article does not cover topics that present positions that can be favored or not.

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?
 * Yes, there is at least one citation at the end of every paragraph
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * This article's source are mostly academic journals, some peer reviewed published pieces, and videos. All of which seem to be reliable sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are almost all from them past 20 years, except for a couple outliers from 1959 and 1962. However, this is not too much of a concern, as an article about and ancient culture most likely relies on older studies.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, they come a number of journals, not all of which are focus on archaeology. Because of this, they cover a variety of view points as well.
 * 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.)
 * The only video comes from a BBC documentary, which I would consider to be more reliable than a clip from news coverage.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

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, although some of the sentences in the leading section can be edited to better summarize specific topic.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I noticed.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, except I think Inca occupation and forced resettlement could have its own section instead of being under the brief "Archeological Sites" section.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, I enjoyed the the images as useful visuals that have been rightfully dedicated to colorful descriptions.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, although there could have been another image for the archeological sites section to help balance out the abundance of images at the beginning and at the end.

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 a number of discussions happening on the talk page that most have to do with revising the content to be more descriptive and including the findings of other countries and archeologists. Some other discussions have to do with editing and adding external links.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a part of 2 WikiProjects: WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas and WikiProject Peru
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The focus is more centered around the history leading up to what is now know of the contemporary culture while Pompeian archeology and general studies have to do with uncovering the lost ancient culture.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is mostly complete, the only thing missing is the history section.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The structure and archeological history section are the article's strengths
 * How can the article be improved?
 * There could be more information on what the culture looks like today.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say that this article is well-developed