User:Dmitter/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: Artifact (archaeology)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Because we learned about artifacts this week.

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? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? consise

Lead evaluation
The lead is informative at a surface level. It is well written and the main points are hit.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Content evaluation
There was good information and good explanation of different context of artifacts. Although the ethical section could have delve deeper and analyzed more.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? very
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
It has a very mellow tone throughout. A sense of teaching the reader. The section about ethics did well on explaining both sides and not being bias at all.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * 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? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are good. Most are books and written within 2000s.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? very
 * 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

Organization evaluation
It is very well written. The context section could have been named something different though.

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

Images and media evaluation
Good images to show what artifacts are.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? they spoke about grammar and organization as well as not involving culture references.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? yes it is
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? it does not differ really. just not as deep into the way cultures influence artifacts.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? very good
 * What are the article's strengths? conciseness and explaining things well
 * How can the article be improved? include more in depth information on how artifacts differ from each other
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? it is good but could be better

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: