User:Jassphill/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: Feminist archaeology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.- I chose this article because I am interested in a balanced approach to studying past people’s and this article has a quality amount of information to evaluate.

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?- No but there is a table of contents in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?- No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?- its is clearly written.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?-yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?- Somewhat- last edited in 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?- yes, missing some things.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?- No, I think this article spoke to concerns of marginalized communities.

==== Content evaluation- The content of this article is well organized and throughly explained. There is an example for every claim and includes the perspectives of underrepresented populations with respect to Intersectionality. ====

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?- No and the talk page reveals it was totally rewritten by one person.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?-Its hard to judge since the articles topic is about an unequal representation of the women’s view point in archaeology As opposed to the male counterpart.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?- Yes, the tone seems to take a stance and agree with studying past societies through a feminist frame of mind.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?-yes

==== Tone and balance evaluation- The tone and balance in this article could use some work. Although the topic lends itself to being rejected or accepted, the contributions in this article clearly come from people who agree with the approach, instead of providing content to simple inform the reader about feminist archaeological thought. It is also alarming that only one person contributed to the live article. ====

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?-Could use more.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?- yes

==== Sources and references evaluation- The last time this article was modified was back in September 2019. Before then there were a number of people contributing to the article. There aren’t any clear indications of the inclusion of historically marginalized people in the development of this content. However, there are a number of theories and feminist archaeologist noted throughout. ====

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?- a few run on's.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?- yes

==== Organization evaluation- The article is clearly outlined in the table of contents, however the format of the headings don’t all match. I like how the article features a diagram that breaks down the realms of anthropology. This feature allows for a wider reception of the information. ====

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- Both the diagram of feminist thought and anthropology as a disciple are helpful and add quality to this article. By being off to the side along the article, they can be referenced throughout the read. ====

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?- there hasn’t been activity in the talk page since 2016.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?- no. I don’t see a rating.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?- Wikipedia discusses the topic in a more persuasive way but in class it's more informative.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?- A work in progress.
 * What are the article's strengths?- the outline is clear, there are plenty of references and the diagrams/ tables to the left.
 * How can the article be improved?- By adding more content dedicated to the intersections of women in society and the number of roles they play while marginalized.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?- underdeveloped.

==== Overall evaluation- This article is underdeveloped because it is missing key information about feminist theory at work and the article barely touches on the intersections of being a women in society. However, the diagrams used helped to fill in the blanks where information is lacking. I think this article did well at showing the negative effects of employing a modern standard to past societies. ====

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: