User:Metomlinson/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title Feminist Archaeology
 * Article Evaluation
 * Needs more work, but has a solid start. Everything in the article is relevant to the subject of Feminist archaeology, but could use more graphics and more thorough explanations of theories and additional contributions to Feminist archaeological theories. A larger discussion and distinction between Feminist Archaeology and Gender Archaeology may also be warranted. Additional coverage of masculinity studies is also needed, as the information in the article is from 2010, and there is likely more up to date research on the topic. Most claims are backed up by scientific journals and publications by academics in the field, however, more citation could be implemented.


 * Sources
 * Battle-Baptiste, W. (2011). Black feminist archaeology. Left Coast Press, Inc.
 * Janet E. Levy (2014) WHAT I BELIEVE: DOING ARCHAEOLOGY AS A FEMINIST, Southeastern Archaeology, 33:2, 226-237, DOI: 10.1179/sea.2014.33.2.008

Option 2

 * Article title Zooarchaeology
 * Article Evaluation
 * The bones of the article are decent, but there are definitely some areas that could use some work. Provides areas of study in which Zoo-archaeologists are heavily involved, but does not elaborate on them. The section for quantification is literally three sentences long. If this is a prominent technique used by Zoo-archaeologists then there should be a much more detailed section about it. There should also be additional information about what has come out of Zoo-archaeology, theories used in the field, and major contributors to the field. Claims that are made do seem to be backed up by reliable sources, such as scientific journals.
 * The bones of the article are decent, but there are definitely some areas that could use some work. Provides areas of study in which Zoo-archaeologists are heavily involved, but does not elaborate on them. The section for quantification is literally three sentences long. If this is a prominent technique used by Zoo-archaeologists then there should be a much more detailed section about it. There should also be additional information about what has come out of Zoo-archaeology, theories used in the field, and major contributors to the field. Claims that are made do seem to be backed up by reliable sources, such as scientific journals.


 * Sources
 * Gifford-Gonzalez, D. (2018). An introduction to Zooarchaeology. Springer International Publishing.
 * Orton, D.C. (2012), Taphonomy and interpretation: An analytical framework for social zooarchaeology. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol., 22: 320-337. doi:10.1002/oa.1212

Option 3

 * Article title Digital archaeology
 * Article Evaluation
 * The information that this article does provide is good, but there is definitely room for elaboration and the addition of more information on this topic. Most of the sections are very short, consisting of single paragraphs. The most extensive section is "application in fieldwork" which explores several case studies, and even the individual case studies are somewhat bare. The methods and data collections sections specifically are ones that I think need the most work.
 * The information that this article does provide is good, but there is definitely room for elaboration and the addition of more information on this topic. Most of the sections are very short, consisting of single paragraphs. The most extensive section is "application in fieldwork" which explores several case studies, and even the individual case studies are somewhat bare. The methods and data collections sections specifically are ones that I think need the most work.


 * Sources
 * Graves, M. (2014). Digital archaeology: the art and science of digital forensics. Pearson Education.
 * Forte, M., Dell’Unto, N., Issavi, J., Onsurez, L., & Lercari, N. (2012). 3D Archaeology at Çatalhöyük. International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era, 1(3), 351–378. https://doi.org/10.1260/2047-4970.1.3.351

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources