User:Kww14/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: (link) Archaeological excavation
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because it was marked as flagged because it needed improved. This page contains not enough citations.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead could be made shorter and some information should be moved to later sections.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Some information towards the end of the article goes beyond archaeological excavation and is more related to recording data.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Some of the sources are from the 1970s through 1990s, but this may be okay for the article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes. The information about recording may be better suited in its own article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The information about recording is overrepresented. Instead, there should just be a link to an article about archaeological recording.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, this article rarely references reliable sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, many claims and much information is completely unsupported
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some sources are current while others are decades old, but could still be relevant
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Just half of the external links work. The wiki links work fine.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * No, the article was flagged by wikipedia for being too technical for some readers.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are some run-on sentences.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is well-organized but the sections about recording may be superfluous.

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?
 * I believe so, yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * All images are on the right side of the page, which I think is easy to look at because they don't get in the way of the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * People are discussing how some sentences are convoluted and need rewritten. People have offered images that fit well with the article. There are also some copyright issues involving potential plagarism.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is a part of the Archaeological WikiProject. It is rated as a Start-class article. The talk page says it is a level-4 vital article in an unknown topic, and asks for people to improve the article.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There are more pictures with this article, and this article touches on some different excavation methods than what we have discussed in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article needs to be improved.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article contains a lot of information about the complete process of excavation
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article needs to have a lot more citations from reliable sources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is underdeveloped because the information appears to be correct, it just is missing citations, and needs to be written in clearer language.

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: