User:Devonvietri/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: Archaeoastronomy (Archaeoastronomy)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It relates to our study of archaeology, but I'm also fascinated with astronomy and outer space so I thought this would be a great marriage of my interests for me to further investigate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Yes, the lead does have an introductory sentence that defines archaeoastronomy in understandable terms. There are a lot of major sections but the Lead does touch on most of the main ones. No, all of the information present in the Lead is also present within the article. I think that even though the lead is a bit long, it's relatively concise for the amount of information packed into this article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article's content seems very relevant to the topic. The content could be a bit more up-to-date -- the newest article I spotted in the bibliography was from 2015, but many sources were over 20 years old. I'm not sure if information in archaeoastronomy changes that much with time, but some of these sources could still use an update. All of the content I saw seemed to belong in their subcategories of the article. I don't know enough about this topic to know if information is missing from the article or not.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article is neutral; I didn't see any "My opinion is.." or "The most important.." statements, so it appears unbiased. The information is well divided between the two disciplines archaeology and astronomy, so I don't think any viewpoints are under- or overrepresented. The article does not attempt to sway the reader into thinking one way or another - all information is presented in a neutral tone.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The facts in the article are backed up by sources and the sources seem fairly thorough. However, the sources are not very current because the most recently published article cited was only from 2015 and go as far back as citing information from 1912, 1927, and 1966 - unless this information isn't something that becomes outdated over time, then it's probably not a source that should be used. I checked links to several journals and online books and they all worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Overall, the article is easy to read and kept as concise as possible for the amount of information it contains. I didn't catch any spelling errors, at least not obvious ones. The sections definitely reflect the major points in each topic, and the section titled "major sites of archaeoastronomical interest" have different examples of these sites as its subsections, which makes the article easy to navigate.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
The article does have pictures that pertain to the information discussed in the section it was placed near. The images all have relevant captions to help the reader understand what it's showing and how it pertains to the section of the page. Images all appear to be fair use or available to the public domain and are laid out in a way that enhances the reading and doesn't distract from the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The article is rated "good article criteria." It's a part of several WikiProjects, including archaeology (high importance), anthropology (mid importance), history of science (mid importance), astronomy (high importance), and astrology (mid importance). We haven't discussed archaeoastronomy at all in class, but there was a section in Bahn 2012 textbook "Chapter 5: How did people think?" that gives a little information about this topic. Because a textbook is my primary source on this topic, this information hasn't differed much from the Wikipedia article; both the textbook and Wikipedia provide the reader with neutral information.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article's overall status is categorized under "History good article." The article is well-written, has visually appealing images, and information that is verifiable and neutral. The article could be improved by having more specific details - because it's only categorized as "good," the article contains broad coverage that examines the main points of the topic, but I think that more detail would help it become stronger. The article examines many facets of archeoastronomy, so it appears well-developed.

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: