User:Kbee2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laang_Spean?action=edit&veswitched=1&oldid=1043869637

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose to evaluate this article because it involves a site in Cambodia that has evidence of a Hoabinhian which is a topic that I am interested in learning more about. In addition, this article has a lot of examples of external links and citations that I can look at.

Evaluate the article
I felt like this lead section did a good job at describing the site of Laang Spean, including the correct pronunciation. However What I felt that they lacked was an overview of what they were going to talk about throughout the wiki page.In terms of the content, I felt like the article  did a good job at explaining the documentation of the site, however in terms of describing what was found at the site and what it means I think they lacked in explanation. I think that the article is mainly up to date as they talk about  excavations that have taken place since 2009. It is not a very detailed documentation page but I think they do a good job at going over the general information about what is found at that site and where. For example they mention the materials found in the layers of the dig but they do not go on to further explain that these materials are and what culture it might identify with. I Think that the article was written fairly neutrally and it seems to be mainly just reporting the dig site and the main findings that came with the discovery. The sources of the article are t throughout and current, which I think reflects a deep dive about this topic. I think that the words used and the sentence structure is strong but I don’t think that they did a good job at transitioning from one topic to the next. The article does  include images and I think that the image they choose which was a map of the general area of the site did an adequate job of identifying where the digs took place. I think that the article could have been strengthened if  they induced images of some of the artifacts that were found.

This article was part of WikiProject archeology which as an effort to improve coverage fo archeology and archeological sites. It was rated a C class. I think that the way Wiki is talking about this subject is fairly similar to the way we could talk about it in class, perhaps with less detail.

I thin the. strengths of this article have to do with their use of citations and references and the weakness is in the way the writing was done. This was a fairly short page and I feel like they did not adequately go over all of the artifacts and the bigger picture about what the artifacts mean in terms of the culture at that time. In short, I would consider this article a solid effort but there is clearly a lot of information missing and more would need to be added for me to consider this a strong wiki article.