User:Kansastilbury/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Quipu

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because for Week 8, class 2, we will be talking about the Quipu project which I found very interesting and want to learn more about. The definition of a Quipu is one facet of this, and explains why the website is laid out and named how it is.

Lead section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. "Quipu (also spelled khipu) are recording devices fashioned from strings historically used by a number of cultures in the region of Andean South America." The article first defines what a Quipu is, which gives the reader good reason to believe that that is what they will be discussing.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead section does not explicitly say what sections will follow.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise. The lead section talks about what a Quipu is, how they are constructed, what they are used for, a brief history of the Quipu, who they were used by, and the etymology. This is done in two concise paragraphs, and can be used as a sort of "road map" for what will be elaborated on in the subsequent article sections.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. Each section provides relevant background on the construction and use of Quipu system.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The sources range from the early 1900s-2019, but more can be added from the last 5-10 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There are no chunks of information that seem to be missing, and all of the article content flows well.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Adds historical context about minority populations' contributions to the Quipu system.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral? Yes. While the article adds in historical events and context, the author focuses on the feelings of certain groups and its affect on the Quipu system. Not the feelings or opinions that they themselves hold.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Historical context of different populations are added when needed, and accurately described.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. Citations are added where they are needed.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? With the article rating and the range of sources, more current info could be added.
 * Are the sources current? More sources on from the last 15 years could be added.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes. Authors come from a wide range of backgrounds.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Can't find many other sources, so I think they covered their bases. Although some of their sources have links that don't work, and should be replaced.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Checked the first three. Two worked, one didn't.

Organization and writing quality

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. Important definitions are used when necessary, and concepts are clearly explained. The wording is not overly complicated and the structure makes sense.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. The lead section talks about what a Quipu is, how they are constructed, what they are used for, a brief history of the Quipu, who they were used by, and the etymology. The sections after this follow this flow of information.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. The article includes images of a Quipu and what they look like. This shows the reader how they are constructed as this is being explained.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes. The captions do a good job of explaining what the reader is looking at and how it's relevant to the given section.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. They are placed next to the relevant section and are clear.

Talk page discussion

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Most talk page discussions are pertaining to logistical aspects of the article, including the spelling of "Quipu v. Khipu", external links, images, and article section structure.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, and supported by WikiProject Peru.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We haven't gotten to the readings discussing the Quipu project in class yet, but from the research I've done pertaining to my discussion post, Wikipedia discusses the Quipu system similarly.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? The article seems well put together. However, according to Wikipedia's rating system, still has improvements to make in regards to the material. I believe the article is professionally written, but its status could be improved by making these adjustments.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article is very detailed and provides an extremely thorough historical context. After looking at the Quipu project website, the Wikipedia page furthered my understanding as to why the concept of communication was emphasized so heavily.
 * How can the article be improved? Adding more recent sources on the topic.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it  underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is complete. There are no apparent gaps, and the article provides a thorough insight into the Quipu.