User:Krw77/Evaluate an Article

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


 * Name of article: Archeology of Shipwrecks
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article because I was interested in the topic. Further, I noticed that there was a decent amount of substance and many footnotes/references. It seems like it is off to a good start.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it defines shipwreck archeology.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It mostly talks about it in a broad subject manner, but does not fully describe its contents until you scroll down to the content box.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. It is very brief, meaning that the overall definitions are applied to the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Moderately detailed. It is too brief and really does not have a good focus on what or why the article's content is important.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, research is relevant from past 5 years to present.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think the content is good, in terms of interpretation of archeological shipwrecks. The article's lead seems like it will discuss maybe the top shipwrecks of most importance, rather than interpretation of such. I think that it needs to incorporate more examples.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, it is not opinionated or biased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think that info on the titanic is underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, strictly informational.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes - 2015 or newer
 * 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? It is concise and easy to read but needs better transitions.
 * 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, but topics need to be better outlined in the lead.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, but are examples not described

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Citing info
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? 3 wikiprojects of C class importance - Archeology, Shipwrecks, Scuba Diving
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Good, online for reading
 * What are the article's strengths? organization and citations
 * How can the article be improved? transitions, descriptions of examples especially with images
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: