User:Mrman0930/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) Archaeology of shipwrecks
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose to evaluate this article because it is related to my course topic (Archaeology) and this article is rated as a C-class article

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The lead does include an introductory sentence that clearly describes the what the archaeology of shipwrecks is. As the lead continues, the information begins to loose focus. The lead goes into detail with regards into the shipwrecking process and how it effects the seabed floor. This is related to the section on Preservation of material underwater but is still not directly related. Furthermore, the lead provides no insight on the section regarding Archaeological theories of shipwrecks. Furthermore, the lead paragraph does into great detail regarding how a shipwrecks are special for archaeologists that I believe is not needed.


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

Lead evaluation
'''The lead looses focus very quickly and goes into too much detail about how shipwrecks effect the seabed. Additionally, a few of the paragraphs in this section are entire quotes.'''

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * The content is relevant to the topic and provides appropriate information. Additionally, the content is up-to-date. Both of the methodologies in the Archaeological theories of shipwrecks only use one paper and source for this information. These methodologies may not be legitimately accepted methods if only one paper can be found about them. Additionally, I believe sections on some of the famous wreck sites could be added to this article with their emphasis on archaeology.


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The content available is appropriate for the article however more investigation should be given on whether the Archaeological theories of shipwrecks that are given are legitimate theories.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The article provides a neutral viewpoint throughout the article. Additionally, no sections show talking points that may be of concern.
 * I believe that the Preservation of material underwater may be overrepresented in both the lead and the body.
 * All in all, the article does not appear to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
====The overall tone is appropriate, however I believe the Preservation of material underwater may be overrepresented in the article====

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * I believe all the citations used are backed up by a reliable secondary source. Additionally, the sources are thorough with some being entire scholarly publications and many being sites from educational platforms.
 * The provided sources are all earlier than 2000 and are current. I also checked a few of the links and they do work.


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

Sources and references evaluation
Although some sections have very little citations, the citations used are appropriate and current.

Organization
'''The article is well-written with easy to read text. However, I believe that some of the language used in the lead is too casual and provides random jumps to other topics. I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors as a read through the article. Lastly, although the section of of Preservation of material underwater is large, I believe the information in this section is appropriate and contributes detailed information'''
 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The organization of the article is appropriate, however more sections for new topics should be added, and some of the information in the lead should be moved or deleted.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * A substantial amount of of photographs are in the article with proper captions. Additionally, these photos adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * There are three photos in the lead of the article that barely fit. I believe this should be re-worked.


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The amount of photographs in the article are great and each photo is properly cited.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * The only conversation going on on the talk page is an automatically generated message from InternetArchiveBot.
 * The article is rated C-class in three different WikiProjects: WikiProject Archaeology, WikiProject Shipwrecks, WikiProject Scuba diving. Both the archaeology and shipwrecks WikiProjects mark this article as High-importance and the scuba diving WikiProject mark this as Mid-Important.
 * Compared to the how we have talked about it in class, this talk page is very inactive with the only discussion post being an automated message.


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page lacks and interaction from other people.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is overall very functional and currently holds as a great framework for more information to be added and cited. I believe the articles pictures and list of famous shipwrecks and wrecksites provides helpful information for this topic. On the other hand, this article needs to remove and edit large portions of text that are block-quoted. It also lacks a diverse amount of citations for its methodologies section.
 * I believe the article is not complete but developed enough for more information to be added in the future. As is, the article lacks additional section of information.


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
'''Overall, I believe this article is appropriately rated as a C-class article. The article is average with both strengths and improvements being needed.'''

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: Talk:Archaeology of shipwrecks#Large Quotes