User:KarlyKerod/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an Article

 * Name of article: Food history
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because it provides great detail on the history of food. There are many subtopics within this article, and those seem to need a little bit of revising for bias, sources, and other things. Overall, there is a good amount that I can do with this article, even though it is pretty well-rounded.

Lead Evaluation
The lead of the entire article is strong and gives a clear definition of food history. It does not really highlight the major sections in the lead, but it does mention that the article showcases everything from culinary history to specific recipes. The lead does not provide information that is not within the body of the article, but it does lack a rounded structure. While it is concise, I feel that it needs more information to round it out.

Content

 * Content Evaluation

The article's content is relevant to the topic, as there are many subtopics that go in order of which historically occurred first. It goes over the major years related to food history, and some of the most important crops that shaped societies. The content does not need to be updated, as the information is historical and came from many credible sources. It could most likely use some information updates in terms of placement in the article, and could probably use some connecting information. However, for what is there, it looks pretty solid.

Tone and Balance
Tone and Balance Evaluation

It is shown that one of the subjects does not reflect the worldwide view. The subtopic is the Middle Ages, and it looks like the article starts off by stating that "British cooking has been influenced by foreign ingredients and cooking styles since the Middle Ages." The beginning sentence of this subtopic does not necessarily reflect what is discussed in the article. The subtopic should focus on the cooking styles of Europe, and other places that contributed to the cuisine of the Middle Ages. I feel as if this subtopic within Food History needs to be more well-rounded and specific to the Middle Ages.

Sources and References

 * Sources and References Evaluation

It appears that this article has many credible sources listed at the bottom. There are also many in-text citations that suggest that research has been done to find proper sources. The sources look relatively current and most of the links I tried loaded. A few of them did not.

Organization

 * Organization Evaluation

The article is well-written and easy to read, despite the minor errors that arise with the article's format. I did not see any grammatical errors throughout the article. I think the entire topic of food history is adequately divided by ages and culinary styles.

Images and Media

 * Images and Media Evaluation

This article includes images with every subtopic that it describes in detail. The images correspond with the time and place that these culinary styles and periods occurred. The captions could use some editing, as they are more like titles than descriptive explanations. All of the images have citations or are linked to the sites they were taken from, therefore they adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are good supporting content for the article.

Checking the Talk Page

 * Talk Page Evaluation

The talk page of this article does not really have much going on. There are only two comments on certain subtopics of the article. It says that the article is listed at a level-5 vital article in History, and that it's included in two different WikiProjects. This article on Wikipedia is very historical, while in our class, we are more concerned with cultures.

Overall Impressions

 * Overall Evaluation

This article appears to be in its final stages– it just needs some polishing, and some adjusting within the subtopics. The article is very good at providing a lot of historical facts in such a concise manner. I also see that the article has many credible sources, linked within the paragraphs. The article could use a look at each subtopic individually. Some of them need a more clear focus, while others need grammatical and structural improvement. I think this article is well-developed, but it needs quite a few finishing touches.