User:Moro0239/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the article I will be completing for the Wikipedia Project, which is Inca Cuisine.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I was interested in learning more about the empires that dominated South America, before the arrival of the Europeans, as I felt I haven't learned too much about them in previous academic settings. Cuisine is an important part of any group's culture, and I feel by getting a better understanding of aspects of one's culture, it becomes easier to understand the motivations behind what they did. Regarding my initial reaction to this article, I did think it was a bit short. It is definitely informative, but not very in depth. I think more complexity could be tied into the article, like adding more about the importance of the cuisines in Inca culture as a whole.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

The first sentence of this article clearly describes the article's topic. However, their major sections are not clearly specified within the lead section. The lead article sticks to the information being discussed in the article, other than some simple context, such as mentioning the time period of the Inca Empire. Lastly, I would say the lead is of good length, but could be more concise and focused.
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

The article's content is relevant to the topic. As of now, I believe the content is up to date. I think there is a more cultural aspect that is missing from the article. The article states the different cuisines, but does not always connect it back to why it is important to making the Inca who they are. It feels a bit like the attention on each topic mentioned is not very balanced. This article draws attention to the Inca Empire, which is a pretty well known empire that was present in South America. Again, I feel it could do better at highlighting how Inca cuisine elevates the empire's culture.
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

The article is neutral. The article does not push the reader in one direction or the other. There are no claims in the article that seem heavily biased, as most of the information is presented as statements. Minority viewpoints are considered, but could probably be further developed, possibly by use of sources of authors who are closely associated with Incan culture.
 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

I feel like some of the facts are missing their backing by secondary sources. Unfortunately, there aren't any links in the sources, so I am unable to check on the sources through the Wikipedia page. Instead, I copy and pasted the names of the articles into Google Scholar, but that wouldn't be very direct for any reader. Based on the references, it seems the sources are relatively current. Some of the sources are more recent than others, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it is important to consider different times in history when gathering information. The author's of the sources are not very diverse, I believe there is not much representation coming from descendants of Incan culture, if that is something that is possible. I believe there is potential for better sources. There are some appropriate sources already, but I believe there should be more peer-reviewed articles.
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

While the article is pretty easy to follow and read, I feel it could be more concise and have a better flow. It often feels like the jumps from topic to topic are a bit severe. I felt that some ideas were stated and there was immediate jumps to something else. It left me wondering what else there is to know about certain topics that were skipped over so quickly. For example, I thought about how important chicha is in Incan culture, and it is only mentioned so briefly in this article. The article is free of any grammatical or spelling errors. The article is broken down into three sections. However, I feel there could be more sections and more information within each section. The sections are pretty broad (fruits and vegetables, meats, preparation), maybe there could be some subsections included in the edits.
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media
There are only four images within the article, which is something that could be improved. Two of the images add to the understanding of the topic, showing traditional dishes and what they were composed of. There is one image that doesn't add to the topic too much, as it is just a stock image of potatoes. The images captions are very straight-forward and to the point, which is good. It is not very clear where the images came from... The images are not really laid out in any pattern, they are just thrown into the article. The images could definitely be rearranged.
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

There is a lot of discussion about whether the article should be named "Inca Cuisine" or "Andean Cuisine," depending on what is being included in the article. Additionally, there is discussion about turning lists into prose, which makes sense. There is some debate over whether everything within the article is accurate... The article is currently rated an S, which implies the article is incomplete and not entirely satisfactory. I feel this article discusses the topic as a very surface level, just listing terms and not really explaining their context or importance.
 * 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
The overall status of this article is okay, quite basic. The strengths are that there is a good chunk of information within the article, the topics just don't seem to be developed all the way. There is a lot of stating of topics, but not much complexity. I feel like it is important to get the reader thinking about the topics mentioned in the writing, not just absorbing the information. Additionally, I feel there should be more images to add to the visual aspect of the article. The information currently within the article should be fact-checked, considering the discussion in the Talk page. I would say this article is underdeveloped, but with improvement, it will become more complete and useful.
 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting