User:Lawrencekp/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) Zooarchaeology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I think that Zooarcheology is a cool field of study but the article seems a bit small. There are also a few sections that seemed unfinished so it seemed like a good article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the lead makes sense and has links to other wiki pages for topics that are included which people might not understand.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does have reference to some of the sections but then not to others, so here is one place where I would say it needs some more revision.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It seems to go into detail about how zooarcheology can be confusing and confused with other disciplines more than it gives information about the topic.However, I do not think that it strays too far from what the main article is talking about.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the first paragraph of the lead is pretty good, not too detailed but gave a good overview of zooarcheology. The second paragraph still has important information but could be revised some.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes everything is relevant
 * Is the content up-to-date? Pretty up to date a few sources within the last five years
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The whole section under the header "faunal remains" is blank. Seems as though an editor added that section in in July but has not added information yet. Under the section "examples from prehistory" There is a lengthy paragraph about dog/wolf burial. This would be fine if there were more examples but it seems odd to have that as one of the only prehistory examples of applied archaeology.

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? No this seems very neutral
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not in my opinion

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the article cites many sources, and every claim seems to be backed by a source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources seem to be good, they are mostly from scientific journals or educational facilities.
 * Are the sources current? There is a mix of sources ranging from 1996-2020. There are at least four from the past five years.
 * 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? Most of it is, a few parts need some editing
 * 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 not every section has enough information (or any information) and other sections seem to be too focused on one thing.

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?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes they look nice

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The talk page is pretty small. A few edits made to grammar and some clarification of the lead section.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is part of WikiProject Archeology and WikiProject Animals
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I have not had a class really bring up zooarcheology

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths? It has a good definition for zooarcheology and some of the other sections have very relevant information.
 * How can the article be improved? Some sections need a bit of editing like the lead, while sections like "faunal remains" needs to be added all together.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped but it could get there with just a bit more information

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: