User:DeathOnArrakis/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: Ötzi
 * I chose this article because I remember reading about Otzi in the past and being intrigued with it. There is also still a lot of new information coming out about Otzi, so I feel like there's a lot that I would be able to contribute.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? Yes, it claims that Otzi is known for being Europe's oldest natural mummy which I could not find anywhere else in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No, I feel like it is fairly concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Most of the content is up to date, but there are some new findings that have not yet been added to the article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No and no.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * 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? The vast majority are backed up with a source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? It's diverse, but I don't see any explicit inclusion of marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

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 very few, just two people's input on the accurateness on a date and Otzi's profession.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as B-class. Yes, several.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? There does not seem to be much discussion on this topic.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? I find that this article is overall, very good.
 * What are the article's strengths? It is very descriptive about the scientific findings about Otzi and history about his body.
 * How can the article be improved? Add more up to date information about recent findings.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is well-developed and full of information.

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: