User:Nm673/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.


 * Cannibal Tours
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because I chose this film to analyze in Unit 2 of my class, Anthropology Through Film.

Lead
While the lead paragraph does concisely describe the article's topic, the introductory sentence simply states the name of the film and the names of the director and cinematographer. The lead is very concise - in fact, maybe too concise. It does not really get into a description of the article's major sections.
 * 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?

Content
The article's content is relevant to the topic. The content is up to date (the last edit was August of 2020). There is not any content that doesn't belong, but more content could be added. The entire article is only three paragraphs long. The article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps, however it does address a underrepresented indigenous group from the village of Tambunum. The article gets into how the film represents the indigenous people as rational, logical, and modern; Meanwhile the European tourists are represented as driven by bizarre beliefs.
 * 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?

Tone and Balance
The article is written in a neutral tone. There are no biased claims, and all viewpoints are represented equally. The author does not try to persuade the reader in any position.
 * 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?

Sources and References
There are many sources and further reading listed for this article. Many of the sources are from the 80's up until the early 2000's. While the sources are written by several different authors, most of them seem to be white men. They do not come from a diverse spectrum and historically marginalized individuals are not included. The external links are clickable and do lead to other sites.
 * 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?

Organization
The article is well written with no spelling or grammatical errors. The article is organized, but very short. There is a lot more information that could have been added.
 * 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?

Images and Media
The article does not include any images.
 * 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?

Checking the talk page
There is only one comment in the talk page, about an accidental punctuation error, which another user fixed. The article is within the scope of WikiProject Film, and WikiProject Australia. It was rated "Stub Class" in quality and "low importance" in importance scale.
 * 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?

Overall impressions
The article is well-written, however lacks in depth and content. It can be improved by adding more major points about the film or concepts that arise from the film. I would assess this article's completeness as underdeveloped.
 * 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?

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:Cannibal Tours