User:NOakes20/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: Tollund Man
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose to evaluate this article because it peeked my interest because it is a bog body and does not have much information written on it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 does not really list what the article is about. There is no form of thesis statements and it does not introduce the sections in this article. It would be best to give more more background and introduce it better. It would also be best to conduct a thesis statement of some sort.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. Can it be better sorted and elaborated? Yes but it is relevant nonetheless. At this moment I don't believe that anything is missing. No the article is not grouped in the topic of the last question.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 article is written in a neutral and factual manner. There is no bias detected in the article. There are no points over or underrepresented. There is no persuasion present.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


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

Sources and references evaluation
The facts and data points are all correctly cited. There are also links to provide definitions and additional information on the terms and mentions. The sources are thorough and easy to follow. The sources are current and still work, even the older ones. The authors of the sources are diverse.

Organization

 * 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 article is clear and concise. There are no grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 article does include images that support the writing. The photos show great detail too. The pictures are also well captioned. Yes the pictures follow Wikipedia's copyright guidelines and they are visually appealing. All of the photos are aligned along the right side of the website.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 is really detail oriented and observant. Currently they are discussing the bog man's diet, dating of the body, and cause of death. The article is apart of three WikiProjects. Two of which are still ongoing and one inactive. The article is rated as a level five vital article. In wikipedia it seems more reliable when discussing topics on the talk page because everyone has done research and compares it. That are also able to link their sources with one another.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 the article is pretty decent. It provides facts, credible sources, and small observant details. The article can be strengthened by adding more data point and information to fill in the gaps. Also the introduction can be improved by giving more background information and providing a brief description of the topics in the article. The article is well developed.

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: