User:Karina Devoid/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
My responses to the questions are indented, following the questions.

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Popol Vuh: Popol Vuh
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because it was central to the class "Precolumbian Civilizations," which I recently took.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it does sketch out the most critical parts of the who what when where and why.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it does not. It gives historical background that might be more fitting of a later sub-section than provide an overview of the text's significance.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, it does detail other names given to this document. Besides this, not so much.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The scholarship is mainly up till 2009 in its scope. It could be improved by taking a look at the last ten years of work.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Content is topical; of correct depth and breadth.

Content evaluation
Answers are beneath each question.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No. For example, the page details both sides of the debate as to whether or not a pre-Ximenez codex ecisted.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, but there could be more work done to explain the mythic significance of Hunahpu and Ixbalanque instead of the more matter of fact pieces that don't get at their significance in Maya-Quiche cosmology. This, or course, would require an overview of different scholarly positions, as it does go a little beyond "surface level" reading.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * As echoed above, no it does not.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Some of the more contemporary relevance related questions could be improved by looking at for example, Guatemalan cultural studies deeper. Now however the evidence of contemporary relevance is news source based.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * To some extent. More work could be done to evaluate not just the text's antecedants, but its relation to contemporary religious practices in addition to the text's own importance as a national symbol.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The scholarship is ten years behind. However, what work did get done in the past was good work; it could just use an update.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. Avoids unecessary grammatical complexity. Not particularly engaging writing, but that is perhaps the point of a balanced take.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Certain indications that edits in English have been made by non-native speaker, but they remain relatively minor.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, but the section on antecedants should go before the section on Ximenez instead of at the very end.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, but it could use some archaeological imagery in the "antecedants" section, which is one of few parts of the text lacking in imagery.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The captions are a bit glib ––they don't identify what object or collection the images appear in. This being said, following the links provided there do allow us to figure this out. I am not sure to what extent captions should be concise if those who want more information can nevertheless find it.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Issues are taken with the images used to depict the deities as potentially misleading/getting the identification wrong. More work has to be done to evaluate what is valid iconographic interpretation and what deviates so substantially from textual evidence as to be totally unviable.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is C-Class, likely because of the information it lacks rather than because of irrelavant content. Numerous relatd projects: Guatemala, faith, etc.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Covers relatively similair mateiral.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Essential debates regarding the text are covered and samples from a wide variety of materials.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Article can be reorganized in a minor way and tie in to contemporary practices rather than glossing it as simply "continuing to be important;" additionally, citation is needed for this contention, which is already noted.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I agree that it is a C-class article that would benefit from the last ten years of scholarship in history, religion, and anthropology.

Overall evaluation
The article is a good resource to get up to speed on the basics of the Popol Vuh and does not present one literary interpretation; this is important, given that a true expert on this topic will have to read it themselves. Connections to related areas of study are beginning to be made. Even still, fleshing out the remaining details would require a significant investment of time, and I don't think I have the expert-status to be able to make any changes with confidence.