User:Kedens2018/sandbox

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes I believe so

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes

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?

I do not think the article is particularly concise, but it is highly informative of interesting facts for a lead section

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes

Is the content up-to-date?

Based on the template message it states that the factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information, so based strictly on that information, it is not up-to-date.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I think there is a bit of missing content in this article of European genetics as it should include how the inner Asian regions and peoples of the middle east (during their migrations) also contributed to today’s European genetics seen today.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

I guess if could be seen with having underrepresented populations as reasons stated from the previous question as well as not including minority linguistic groupings of Uralic and Turkic language contributions, not just Indo-European language groups.

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?

For the most part with a few exceptions

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Yes as the writer wants the reader to believe a certain stance that European genetics evolved separately from other populations

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Yes as stated above

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes as they can be tracked through the references

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

There are a diverse spectrum of authors. I do not know if there are historically marginalized individuals because there are no pictures of the authors and I do not feel that is really relevant to the topic.

Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

It is except I had to do a lot of definition checks on some of the words used

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

None that are obvious to me or any corrections in the talk page

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

The included immigration charts illustrated the topic well but some can be confusing to understand

Are images well-captioned?

Yes

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Not all of them

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes but I feel they should be a little larger

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Unproven judgements, the Western Hunter Gatherer diet, recently removed content about historical migrations into Europe and Siberia geneflow, and an IP vandalizing the article

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

It is rated a start-class. It is part of 3 WikiProjects

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?

I thought it was very informative

What are the article's strengths?

Many exhaustive details

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

I thought it was well-developed

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Which article are you evaluating?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Europe

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I like connecting genetics with history. This article utilizes genetics to further the topic which is directly related to the coursework. My preliminary impression of it was that it was an interesting read with a lot of detail on each topic discussed.

Evaluate the article

I think the article was a good and informative read with reliable sources that can be traced except for a few maps. It has a good but somewhat lengthy lead, but the overall layout complied to the guideline style of a good Wikipedia article. The spelling and grammar were correct throughout. The inclusion of inherited genetics of Asian and middle eastern genes being more prominent throughout the article would give much improvement however.