User:Gtej05/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Archaeology of China

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose it because I'm interested in archaeology (mainly Classical), but I chose the Archaeology of China because it had obvious grammatical errors (likely not written by a native English speaker) and was very short, which can't be right as China has a very rich and long history that I'm sure has been uncovered at least in part by archaeology.

Evaluate the article
The lead sentence is not interesting and essentially just mentions that archaeology of China is a subject that people study. The lead is loosely connected to the sections of the article, but does not outline the sections clearly. It includes a tidbit about when scientific archaeology in China began, but does not expand on it in the article. The lead is concise but not necessarily in a good way, in that it is composed of a few details.

The article's content is relevant but not very expansive. The content of the article seems fairly recent but not up to date, the latest date mentioned in the article being 2018. The article clearly deals with an equity gap, as a subject as expansive as Chinese archaeology should be a very long article, but it is clear not many people thought it worth it to write a thorough article. The page on the Archaeology of Greece is longer, contain images, and is much more organized.

The article does not necessarily attempt to "convince" anyone of anything as it is simply an informative article, but it does draw unnecessary albeit neutral comparisons (e.g. "Regardless of whether it is superior or inferior to Western archaeology in anthropology, changes are inevitable with the development of the times.")

The sources and references are all published by university presses, which implies that they are reliable. There are also no author repeats. They used historically marginalized authors in that they used a couple of Chinese authors, but most of the names listed are European. Not every sentence has a citation, which might also be problematic. A few of the sentences seem to be opinions or personal, as well. They used the pronoun "our" before I went in and edited it. The links work but some don't take you directly to the source.

The text of the article is neither well written nor well organized. There are numerous grammatical errors, and it would be better organized if it were sectioned into "periods," like the Archaeology of Greece article.

There are no images used.

There is no conversation on the Talk page besides a question about joining this article with another one. The article is rated as "start-class" and a part of WikiProject China (high-importance) and WikiProject Archaeology (top-importance).

This article is poorly developed and needs substantial research, revision, and additions.