User:Johns9ea/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: Nok culture
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I
 * have chosen this article because I was very interested in Nok culture when learning about it in class and I wanted to delve into the Wikipedia page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the sentence describes what type of society it was: Iron age, why it was given its name, as well as what the society is famous for and when the terracottas were discovered.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead discusses things such as smelting and forging, which are later elaborated on in the article. There is also mention of the terracottas, which are integral to our understanding of the Nok culture.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead includes information about smelting, but never elaborates on it later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, but there could possible be more information about farming. This is talked about in the article but there is not mention of it in the lead.

Lead evaluation
Overall the lead is good. It is concise and describes most of the main points that will be discussed in the article. However, the lead talks about smelting in Nok culture but never brings it up again. It should either be removed or have its own section in the article. Preferably the latter.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, there was nothing in the article that seemed particularly out of place.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The last time the article was updated was September 27th 2019. While there is some information that has been taken from Bernard Fagg's research in the 60's, this page is on an ancient civilization. While there may be new findings and new understandings of these findings, there are no new 'doings' of the Nok to be researched. I did not find anything in the article that contradicted what we have learned in class.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I did not think there was anything missing. However, I think it could be interesting to add in how looters make fake sculptures using dirt and clay from real sculptures. The current sentence is :"What further complicates the problem are the many workshops which fake Nok sculptures and then put them on the market as authentic.". I think that adding a small subheading about how this is done would add further understanding to the severity of this.

Content evaluation
Despite the fact that not much is known about the Nok culture, this article does a good job of putting everything on the table. I did not notice many gaps in content or any extraneous content.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes. The authors have no bias they are trying to prove.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not that I could discern.
 * 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.

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is a generally unbiased article simply attempting to spread more knowledge about the Nok culture. None of the editors have ulterior motives.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There is a sentence that is trying to figure out what the Nok figures could have been used for, without any citation. "Also, based on the dome-shaped bases found on several figures, they could have been used as finials for the roofs of ancient structures." While this may be true, it seems like this is an editor adding in their own opinion without backing it up with sources.
 * There seems to be large paragraphs in the Sculpture section without any citations.
 * No citations in the Ceramics sections
 * A lot of the information in the second half of the article seems to come from the 12th source
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Most of the sources are in book form, and a few of the other ones are in German. It is hard to discern if they are thorough or not, but the information in the article seems to match what was given in the talk about Nok culture in the video we watched for class.
 * Are the sources current?
 * There are both sources from the 60's and 70's as well as sources from the 2000's, with a few from 2013 and 2014. I'm not sure if active work is being done to research this culture.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All but one of the links I clicked worked.

Sources and references evaluation
There are a few sections with no citations, and one of the links is broken. I was not able to evaluate the written sources. There also seemed to be a lot of information coming from the 12th source. Perhaps there could be more citing as well as variable sources for information.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. It is well-organized.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I saw.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. The only change I would make is a small subheading about the making of fake sculptures in the looting section. This section is long with no subheadings.

Organization evaluation
Overall the organization is good.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. There is an image showing where the Nok were located, as well as 4 examples of the sculptures they made. There is also an additional map showing where excavated sites are.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Two of the images of the sculptures are not cited.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Images and media evaluation
The images are well selected, but two of them have not been cited.

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 are conversations going on about condescending regarding anywhere in Africa having an Iron Age.
 * Talk about the true date of the Nok culture, there seems to have been a typo which put it at 3000 BC rather than the correct 1000BC.
 * Lots of talk of needing citations
 * Before 2009, it was regarded as a civilization rather than a culture. Culture is correct.
 * There was mention of connecting Yoruba culture and Nok culture as racist. This was taken out of the article as it was unsubstantiated.
 * .Someone in February wanted the British flag taken away from the page due to the history of colonization in Africa.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated as Start-class and High-Importance, level-4 vital. It is part of Wikiproject Nigeria and Africa.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia did not originally have all the information that we have now in 2019. Therefore in the beginning there was a lot of things that had to be shifted through to get to the truth.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page has dealt with issues of racism, and wants to make sure that things are correct, which is the purpose of a talk page. It seems that the article has changed a lot since it was created in 2007, but it is still at a start-level.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article is rated as Start-class. This is one step above stub-class, which is a good starting point!
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article has good pictures. It has a good overview of information on Nok culture.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More details could be added, with more citations. More pictures of sculptures could be added, as there are only four.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Having read Wikipedia's qualifications for each classes, I believe the article could still use substantial work. It is not poorly developed, but there could definitely be more information in there. There may still be issues of bias that have to be addressed, but I am not knowledgeable enough to know where those may be.

Overall evaluation
The article has some work that needs to be done on it. Despite this, it is a good starting point.

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: Talk:Nok culture