User:Mmcandrew/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: Capacocha
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Capacocha was mentioned briefly in one of early readings in class, and I was so interested I immediately read the entire wikipedia page for it! So, when I saw it was listed as approved article, I thought it would be a good choice.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the first sentence of the article gives a good idea of what capacocha is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There are some sections of the article that aren't mentioned in the lead section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * There are some statements about the means of death in capacocha that don't seem to be mentioned elsewhere.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's overly detailed, relative to the other sections of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content seems relevent.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, it seems up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is some content that is only mentioned in the lead (e.g. manner of death). Other aspects of Inca culture are described unevenly, with some aspects described in detail and others not really described at all.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * My first impression is to say no. But sort on the subject, there is a lot of detail included about the early misconception that capacocha typically involved removal of hearts, which the article attributes to colonists misidentifying Aztec rituals with the Inca, which does seem relevant the problems of talking about colonized peoples.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the tone strikes me as very neutral, especially considering the "loaded-ness" of human sacrifice.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * As I mentioned early, the article states that it is incorrect, but there is a lot of space given to the inaccurate accounts of Spanish colonists.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Other than what I've already mentioned, I don't think so.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, this article seems well cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I haven't done too much research yet, so I can't say for sure. I know the article we read that mentioned capacocha cites other instances of it that the article doesn't mention, and some of the information (e.g. the age of the people sacrificed) seems inconsistent.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of the sources are from 1990-2010 or so. The only recent source discusses heart removal, which seems like it might be controversial given what I've already mentioned about the colonist accounts of capacocha and seems like it may be inconsistent with other information about capacocha, so I think this may be something I should look more into.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I can't be totally sure without looking into all of the authors, but they don't seem to be particularly diverse, and don't include many South American publications except for providing definitions of words, which seems like it could be a problem.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they seem to work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Overall, it's easy to read, though I think it could be better.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I didn't notice any.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No, the sections seem insufficient. There are some that are present that seem unnecessary, and some that are necessary but aren't present.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The images that are included are definitely interesting, but I'm not sure if they enhance understanding.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the captions are good.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, I think they do.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I think the lay-out could be better, but it isn't bad.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are none.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It's rated a start-class article, and is part of WikiProject archaeology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It doesn't discuss it at all.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall, its an OK article that could be better.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The information included seems well-cited.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More diverse and complete sources could be added, and the article could be organized in a clearer, more thorough way.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It's fairly well-developed, just badly organized.

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: