User:Fejenn/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: (link) Bioarchaeology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. -- I chose this article because I do think learning about the connection between biology and archaeology could be very interesting.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? no i think a lead needs to be added.. it goes straight into information
 * 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? concise

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? yes i do think there needs to be more detail
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? 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? 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

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? Some small errors that need to be fixed
 * 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? NO
 * Are images well-captioned? No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no images

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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? good article and keeps audience interested
 * What are the article's strengths? describing details are great
 * How can the article be improved? grammar and organization
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? pretty 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: