User:Luluzulu1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Putijarra

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

It relates to my class topic; I was searching for Puritjarra (forgetting that there isn't currently a Puritjarra article!) and came across this article! It's about an aboriginal people in Western Australia. My first impression of this article is that it's not very good.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

LEAD SECTION:

- The lead section is a concise introduction to the topic, but is a little too concise. Like the rest of the article, it could use some expansion.

CONTENT:

- The article is far too light in terms of content. It lacks information regarding population, recent history, customs, and more. The content also seems to be mostly pulled from a single 50 year old source - with the others being even older. More contemporary sources would be great. Especially for an article relating to a marginalized indigenous group, more information and quality is definitely necessary.

TONE & BALANCE:

- The article doesn't present enough information from enough sources to be able to judge bias or balance. In this way I suppose that one viewpoint is particularly over-represented, as the article seems to draw primarily from a single source, which was written by Norman Tindale, noted on his own Wikipedia page to be linked to eugenics projects. While the information in the article doesn't contain any obvious bias, the sources are definitely unbalanced, I would say.

SOURCES & REFERENCES:

- Despite having three sources listed, only one is cited in the article text, and the other two appear to be just padding. Additionally, none of the sources are more recent than 50 years ago (1974). They don't reflect the current state of the Putijarra people. Additionally, the link to the primary source of the article seems to be broken.

ORGANIZATION & WRITING QUALITY:

- The article has no obvious grammatical or spelling errors, but, as already noted, is far too concise. It also awkwardly paraphrases from its source in a way that feels unnatural. The internal structure of the single paragraph composing the article is also strange.

IMAGES & MEDIA:

- There are no images or media in the article.

TALK PAGE DISCUSSION:

- There is no talk page discussion for this article.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS:

- This article is better than nothing but it's still bad. It needs a lot of fleshing out and revision. Its sole strength is that it exists; it's incomplete, poorly written, and poorly sourced.