User:ICK3PITT/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: Urban archaeology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose to evaluate this because it really interested me to find out more behind the discoveries in cities and how the ended up the way they have.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: Yes, it gives a clear definition of Urban Archaeology and explains what it entails without confusion.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: Yes, it gives a list and links to each section of the page so readers can easily access all information and reach sections that they are interested in.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: No, the information in the lead is all present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: I think that it gives perfect amount of information for readers to see what the topic is without giving it all away and providing unnecessary information.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?: Yes, the information is all relevant to the topic
 * Is the content up-to-date?: The content is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: The list of urban archaeologists does not include much detail about each but does list them.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?: Yes, the article is neutral and does not slant any way or have clear biases.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: No claims seem biased towards a position or person.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: I think more details about specific urban archaeologists could have boosted the article content more.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: No, there is nothing that persuades or pushes narratives on readers in the article or that influences their thinking strongly.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?: Some of the information is, others had to be searched on internet further.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: Could be more detailed included in article.
 * Are the sources current?: Yes, they are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?: One of the links did not work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: Yes, it is very easy to understand and no issues with how it was written.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?: No grammatical or spelling errors in the article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: Yes, it was broken down well and put into appropriate sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?: No images were included at all.
 * Are images well-captioned?: N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?: N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?:N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?: No conversations are going on behind the scenes.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?: There are no ratings or WikiProjects listed.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?: Wikipedia seems to talk about pretty similarly, although not as many examples as we do in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?: Overall, the article's status is pretty good with potential to be boosted even more.
 * What are the article's strengths?: Strengths is its explanations and descriptions of terminology and clearly explains what urban archaeology aims to do.
 * How can the article be improved?: It could be improved by adding more secondary sources for people to look at and descriptions of urban archaeologists.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?: I would say it is well-developed for the most part with a couple of areas mentioned above to improve on.

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: