User:Margarita Arzoumanian/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) Earthenware Ceramics in the Philippines
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article because my Wikipedia project was on glass and stone beads in the Philippines which are known as ancient artifacts and prestigious goods similar to earthenware ceramics. Both glass and stone beads are connected to ceramics in the Philippines. My knowledge on glass stone beads and their trade and manufacture within South-east Asia will be valuable in my evaluation of another article on Philippine artifacts.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead did not include enough information about the sections and subsections of the article.


 * 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? Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
It could have included more information regarding the sections in which the page will cover an the topics that will be discussed within the overall page.

Content

 * Guiding questions

All the information in the article is relevant to the topic and very informative. I wouldn't say their is any information that would distract me, although there is a lot of information. All the information seems to be up to date. I don't believe there is anything missing or needed to be added. To improve I would add more information into the introduction.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes it is.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes it is.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, I wouldn't say so.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The tone of the article seems to be very neutral, there is no sign or influence on any particular position. No position seems overrepresented or underrepresented. The information is mainly fact based.


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I wouldn't say so.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepreseInted? No, not necessarily.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, certainly not.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

All the information provided were backed by reliables sources of information. The sources reflect available articles that may be accessed and provide current information. The sources do work, I check a few of them to make sure.


 * 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.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions

I have check a few of the citations used and they seem to work which tells me that they are legitimate sources. The article is very clear and concise regarding the information provided. It is way to read and understand which is a huge advantage. Grammatically it seems to be written well with no spelling mistakes detected either. The article seems to be very well organized with plenty of sections and subsections to divide the content into the correct sections. This is a main reason why it is so clear and easy to read and understand.


 * 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.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

Unfortunately, there are not images available on this article which is a disadvantage for the readers. Images make the content you are reading much more interesting and understandable.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N.A.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

For some reason when clicking on the talk page it would not open, I am not sure if it was an issue on my end, however it may eb possible that there is no talk page for this article at the moment.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall this article was very well written, organized and informative. The writers used very good sources of information to put this page together. However I would suggest two improvements, the first, adding images to attract the reader with fascinating pictures that relate to the topic. Second, add more information in the introduction on the sections and topics that will be discussed within the article. The strengths of this article are the content and organization. This article is certainly well-developed.


 * What is the article's overall status? Great article.
 * What are the article's strengths? Content and Organization.
 * How can the article be improved? Add images and more information to the introduction.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Well-developed.

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: