User:FrankMashiro/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: Digital anthropology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * According to the page, digital anthropology studies the relationship between human and technology, which is consistent with the content of our class.

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
The Lead for this article starts by clearly defining the topic in a sentence, and then briefly discusses the subcategories of digital anthropology. It doesn't contain information that is not further elaborated on later. Overall, it is a fairly concise Lead.

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 content further discusses the definition and scope of digital anthropology, before going on to cover the methodology for the study and ethical challenges faced by the study. The content is fairly up-to-date. citing sources as recent as 2017. All of the content is consistent with the topic and fits in structurally.

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 article takes an overall neutral tone, presenting the voices of many different groups with balance and not showing an opinion. The article doesn't seem to attempt to lead the reader in any direction.

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
Most of the information is supported by sources, but some information about digital fieldwork lacks citation to back it up. The cited sources, though, are all up-to-date and show a good amount of credibility. All of the provided links work.

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
The article is concise and clear, and is grammatically consistent. Its sections are clear and well-organized, and is sequenced with much logical sense.

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, unfortunately, contains no images or other forms of media.

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 was rewritten, and redirected from, an old article titled "cyberanthropology". The earliest entry on the talk page, dated in 2014, mentions the reason behind rewriting the original article, which the author found incoherent and in need for a lot of editing. Later discussions on the talk page are focused on minor changes to source links, some of which are still pending revision up to this day.

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 overall has a solid structure and embodies a considerably neutral tone, while providing a fair amount of valuable information, as well as reliable clarification on the definition and scope for this topic. However, the article is too short for a timely and influential topic like digital anthropology, and needs many more sources to better back up the provided information. It is going in a good direction, but is currently still underdeveloped.

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: