User:Jsun72/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: Māori science
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I randomly chose this article

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead has an introductory sentence that clearly and concisely summarizes the topic at hand; however, the rest is not so effective. The Lead fails to lay out the major sections of the rest of the article (women in Māori science, which is the first section, is wholly unmentioned in the Lead) while also adding in unnecessary information, including the science's specific types of outputs and the two colleges at which this field of knowledge is taught. Thus, although the first sentence does well in capturing the essence of the topic at hand, the rest of the Lead is overly detailed and would be much more of a traditional Lead if some sentences were purged or left for a later section of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The content is all relevant to the topic, but despite that, the article lacks severely in the amount as well as the scope of information that is presented. One of the three major sections is Women in Māori Science, which would be fine if there existed a Men in Māori Science or just a general section about the advancements in this field as well as the male scientists that helped make them but there is no such section. Additionally, both the second and third major sections are a mere three sentences each, with only five sources shared between them. This in itself goes to show the need for additional information, whether it be from a wider variety of sources or just more details drawn from those already cited. Fortunately, the content that is covered is indeed up-to-date, but again could benefit from a larger pool.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The sentences found within the article seem to be quite objective and neutral, but the choice of information presented is quite biased. As covered in the evaluation for content, one of the three major sections is dedicated to the women that have made advancements within Māori science, yet there is nothing written at all about men. Moreover, the article claims that "Māori science had major impacts on New Zealand" yet only explains a single piece of evidence for this claim, being that "Wahakaotirangi’s innovations in agriculture ensured the formation and survival of the Tainui people." The information here seems to, then, persuade the reader to adopt a favorable opinion of Māori science without doing nearly enough to objectively support this claim of importance.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
All the information in the article is backed up with published information. The links provided also appear to be in working condition. However, one thing that should be noted is that the article mentions the Tohunga Suppression Act 1907, which apparently was "responsible for erasure of Māori knowledge and science." This calls into question the scope of the sources used. How were these sources created if Māori science was eradicated? Additionally, how trustworthy is this available literature if Māori science started being erased at the very beginning of the 20th century? The article should extrapolate more on how the information concerning Māori science was passed on despite the Act and how its existence was documented.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article contains no writing errors but again has room for major organizational improvement in that more sections may be added to the topic. This includes a general section on advancements in Māori science (not just made by women) and also perhaps the study of Māori science in the modern world (perhaps the information in the Lead about the two colleges could be placed in this proposed section). Despite this serious flaw, the article is written well enough and is quite easy to digest.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The article has no images whatsoever, and therefore could be improved by the addition of such.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The page is rated as a stub-class, low-importance article. It is part of WikiProject New Zealand. Behind the scenes, there are comments which suggest rephrasing certain words as well as fixing a certain link; however, it appears that none of this has been fixed as of yet.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article appears to be at a standstill. Although the Lead is effective at first, it quickly loses momentum and goes into obscure details that would serve better in sections later on in the article. The overall page also lacks severely in images as well as general information. It requires more sources to become an article of appreciative stature. Even if most of the information concerning Māori science has been eliminated because of whatever historical incidents, there should still be further mention of such events in the article if this is true. Thus, this article, in terms of completeness, is underdeveloped and still has a lot of potential growth.

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: