User:Nreed97/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.


 * Social science
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because archeology and anthropology are subfields of social science.

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 includes an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic in a short and concise manner. The Lead includes a brief description of the major sections in the article and some information listed in the Lead is not present in the major sections of the article. Thereby making the Lead a bit overly detailed.

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?

Content evaluation
I think the article's content is relevant to the topic, it's up-to-date, and the majority of the content is relevant aside from a few details in the Lead.

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 neutral and does not have any claims that are biased or viewpoints that are overrepresented because different theories are presented. This article is not persuasive and is purely factual.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are 48 references that include reliable secondary sources of information. These sources are thorough and range from the late 19th century to the early 21st century. Also, the links on the reference list work.

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
This article is well written, organized, and does not have grammatical errors. Furthermore, the major sections reflect the overall discipline of social science by discussing the branches and methodology in detail.

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 images reflect the topic and major sections of the article. The photos of the theorists and the practices associated with these branches are well captioned and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations but the images could be more appealing. I think adding higher quality photos would make the images more enticing to the reader.

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
There are conversations about ethnocentrism, lack of a neutral perspective, and is nominated to be removed for deletion. This article was not used in any WIkiProjects and all the ratings were critical. The actual Wikipedia article that is published currently discusses a primarily Western point of view in regards to social science and thus, differs from Dr. Acabado's approach to Philippine archeology.

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
After viewing the Talk page, I realized that this article could use more non-Western perspectives of social science. Although, the history of Western social science in the article presented strengths because of its thorough, concise content and could improve in its approach to social science in non-Western societies. As I said, it is well-developed in terms of the Western practice but is underdeveloped in the non-Western perspective.

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: