User:Navar2mr/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Nok culture

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I wanted to use an article that didn't look extremely underdeveloped, because I wanted to see some examples of well done work. I also wanted to be able to identify issues in an article. This page had a lot of content, so it seemed like a safe option for some variety in my evaluation.

Evaluate the article
The first sentence of the lead section outlines where the Nok culture originated geographically. While this was a decent overview of the location origins, it felt a bit confusing. In the midst of this description the author drops in, “where their terracotta sculptures were first discovered in 1928”. The sculptures were referenced as if they had been brought up previously, when they were not. The lead section did describe the article's major sections such as terracotta sculptures and artistic traditions. I think it would be better though if there was less information about these topics in this section. It felt like a lot of immediate information rather than a brief introduction. The information in the lead section was mostly interpretations of what the sculptures tell about the culture. This lacked concision, but it did give good background information about the culture. It would have been more effective if the lead section followed the general outline of the article, touching on topics of Sculpture, Archeology, etc.; this way, the readers understand what information they will be reading about.

The content of this article is relevant to the topic. The article covers important Nok topics such as origin, sculpture, archeology, farming, ceramics, and looting/repatriation. These concepts are up to date. This is evident in the past revisions; there are several edits from this year and last. Most of the content is important and well addressed. However, there is a section at the very end of the article titled, “Descendants”. The information here is scarce and could use some more detail. This article also addressed the important issue of looting and repatriation. This was well done because it went through the history of Nok looting, and followed through with what the issue looks like currently. This was also well done because it was discussed as being wrong and illegal in a neutral tone. In general, the article maintained a neutral tone that was not trying to persuade the audience, even when controversial items were discussed. There was some discourse on the tone of this article on the Talk Page, but it seems like this issue was resolved.

The organization of this article was done well in the author's ability to break the concepts down into sections. For example, “Archeology” was broken down into subsections such as “settlements and architecture”, “tools”, etc. This was effective in helping the audience digest the information. It would have been more helpful though, if this technique was consistent across the entire article. "Sculptures”, for example, was a large section of the article, but lacked organization, making it harder to follow.

The topics in this article were supported by sources that were relevant, current, and reliable. There were a variety of books and journals, and most of the links seemed to work. The cited work also appeared to have the proper information from the sources. The sources were not cited however, for the images used. This author could have done a more thorough job on the use of images. There are some helpful images of sculptures and maps, but they are only in the first part of the article. More images could have been effective in the Archeology section, for example, or even the looting/repatriation section. This would have made more of a lasting impression on the readers for these important topics. In addition to the lack of imagery, the photos included did not have any citations with them. They were captioned, but did not always have a lot of information in the captions.

This article is part of a Wiki Project, so there was quite a bit of discourse on the Talk Page. It seems as though this article has improved a lot as a result of the Talk Page contributions. This author was corrected on a lot of phrasing and tone issues. There was discussion about the author having a condescending tone, with possible racist undertones. The author was also corrected on some misused words and inaccurate dates.

This article includes a lot of useful and relevant information. The strengths of this article are in the organization, and the variety of information. The downfall however, is that this organization is not always maintained throughout the entire article, and some of the unique topics are not discussed as well as others. This article is on its way to being well developed, but as for now, there are several aspects that need improvement.