User:Joselmotter/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.


 * Biological Anthropology: (Biological anthropology)
 * I choose to evaluate this article based on my interest in biological anthropology. Since I have taken some courses on the subject, I thought it would be interested to see what material is included in this article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

In the Article of Biological anthropology, the introductory sentence clearly states the discipline and even includes the old name of Biological anthropology which is Physical anthropology.This ensures that new and old learns of this subject will not be confused on the new name. The lead does include a contents of the subheadings to be included in the article. They all are organized and give the reader a clear agenda on where to find the major sections. Since biological anthropology is one of four fields, on the right side of the article it does have a link to other subfields. The lead is concise and sums up all the major points.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

This article is relevant to the the topic because it discuss the main contributors of the field. As well how biological anthropology became its own subfields. In addition, it describes the other subfields within the branch of biological anthropology. The information gives a sweet summary of the general information on the field. The content is up to date since the last edit was in September of this year. However, they did not place forensic anthropology within the subfields.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

In general the article seems neutral based on not reading any personal opinions on the field. The claim they present are based on facts and there not much gravity towards a particular person expect for Charles Darwin.Darwin of course was a major contributor to the field as well as the other scholars mentioned. All the viewpoints demonstrate the transitions of the field and all are equally represented. The article does not persuade the reader but inform with facts and research. Overall, the article presents a good overview of the topic.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

All the facts are referred to other scholary sources that confirm the information to be accurate. The source do reflect the literature on the topic. The sources are current and are linked next to the person or information presented in the article. I have checked all the links and all refers to the source.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is short but concise on the material presented. It is easy to read and follow along. For now, the article has no grammatical or spelling errors. It seems the article had been reviewed to be published. Throughout the article, subheading are listed so the reader can easily follow. All the sections reflect major points but I wish more information was placed.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article has a diagram of primitive skulls to show how humans are alike to other primates. Thus allows the readers to get a quick understanding of how the fields look through fossil evidence to distinguish compassion between other primates. In addition, the article includes two images of scholars Johann Blumenbach and Franz Boas. Both images are on wikipedia common which adheres to wikipedia copyrights. The images are quite small and I wish they were a little bigger.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The article is rated as a c- class article and is apart of Wikiprojects. In some aspects, the wikipedia discusses the major points that are discussed in class. However, in the classroom, we learn the subject in a more detailed way.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall the status of this article is good. It can be used as a reference for research or simply learning about the topic. The article strength is describing the origins of the field of biological anthropology. However the article can be improved by adding more information. Its too short and needs a separate page for new fields emerging and discoveries. The article is well developed but can improve in some areas.


 * 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?

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: