User:Mmysli/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Germanic peoples

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
- I decided to evaluate this article due to my major and interest in Germanic Studies and ancient cultures.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The lead to the article is strong and begins by giving some general information about the Germanic peoples such as their geographical location and the time range in which their culture was developing and most prominent in Europe. It also cites multiple sources of evidence for the existence of the Germanic peoples by referring to Roman accounts of their encounters with Germanic peoples. The lead also briefly describes how today: it's uncertain who or what groups align with Germanic peoples as their possible ancestors and or are "modern" descendants of the Germanic people.

Sources and Resources:

The article stretches into many fields to explore the history of Germanic peoples. Branching into linguistics and archaeology and citing research from both of those fields (and others) to create a chronological way of assessing the topic.

Images and Media:

The article includes maps, pictures of Germanic archaeological findings and sites along with Germanic art.

Talk Page:

The talk page is very active and has some valid criticism along with fellow Wiki users fact checking certain images used in the article.

Overall Impression:

The article is filled with a lot of information with several external links that take you to different articles to clarify any curiosity about location, terms etc. However, from viewing the talk page, there are some issues with identifying certain figures depicted in art and territories Germanic peoples occupied on maps. Furthermore there is some aversion when referring to historical interactions with Germanic groups: due to the historical accounts themselves being thousands of years old, it's very possible when assessing a source, the writers can think they have an interaction between Romans and Germanic peoples but it could be wrong and or have extreme biases as the Romans considered anyone -not- Roman to be inferior. Furthermore, archaeology has its own issues with data which aren't well addressed in the article.