User:Leah Zaitlin/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: Talk:Absolute dating
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I think that absolute dating methods for geology are interesting.

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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise

Lead evaluation
The lead for this article seems pretty good. It is written concisely and clearly, and it is easy to understand. The table of contents lists all major sections in the article, and there is no information that is not expanded on in the article present in the lead. It is fairly concise and does not have too many details.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Mostly
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? yes
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
All of the content in the article is relevant to the topic and mostly up to date. There are some areas where information is lacking, particularly for the use of absolute dating methods outside of archaeology, such as in geology, geography, and other earth sciences. It does not deal with an equity gap or an underrepresented population.

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? Archaeologists
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is mostly neutral, though there is an emphasis on archaeology as opposed to other disciplines. There is not really any heavily biased claims, but the viewpoints of archaeologists are overrepresented in the article. There does not appear to be significant push for specific positions.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? Some
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Some of the sections are lacking sources, or have very limited literature compared to the available literature on the topic. Most of the sources are reasonably current, though some are older than probably should be used based on how much available literature there is on the topic. There does not appear to be a lot of diversity in the authors, and there does not appear to be any attempt to specifically use historically marginalized authors. The links to sources do appear to work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Organization evaluation
The article appears to be clear, reasonably well written, and free of any major grammar or spelling errors. The article is broken down into reasonable topics that help reflect the major points of the article.

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? moderately

Images and media evaluation
There is only one image in the article but it is a helpful one that is put in in a reasonably appealing way. It does not appear to be breaking any copyright rules, and it is effectively captioned.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
On the talk page there are a lot of discussions about how this article is too focused on archaeology. It is rated C-class, and is related to a number of wiki projects including, time, archaeology, geology, paleontology, volcanoes, physics, and elements.

The article talks about the topic mostly from the archaeological perspective, which is different from how in class we come from the geological perspective.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The status of the article is that it is reasonable for being published, but it needs some significant revision to improve in the future. Its strengths are that it is well organized and most of the content present is reasonable, and dealt with in a good manner. It needs to expand a lot into other areas of the topic, and it may also be good to add some more visual elements to the article as right now it is very visually sparse. It also needs more citations surrounding some of the content it already has. I would say that the article is moderately underdeveloped and needs to be improved upon.

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: