User:Panders2025/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Bantu Expansion

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I think it is the largest-scale topic covered in class so far that about which I have a decent amount of background information. This comes mostly from reading one text but also describing the theory as well as its development with Professor Jacobs. The topic has many implications, including some that I am likely not aware of, including on language families, the development of technology, and the assimilation of cultures.

Evaluate the article
Content:

Information presented in the article seems mostly to be related to the topic. Considering that is is a theory (and explicitly called that in the article), there is not much explanation as how the theory was developed. I learned the theory through five phases, and this perspective is not present in the text. Generally, the chronology/separation of the trend into specific phases is only somewhat attempted. Different categories seem to blend into each other. The map of the spread of the Early Iron Age across Africa is relevant but likely requires more explanation as to explicitly link it to the Bantu Expansion.

The term "pygmy" is used extensively in the article, possibly misrepresenting this historically marginalized group. Similarly, the Twa people are not mentioned in the article, which is likely an important ommision.

Tone:

The tone seems pertinent given that the page is about a theory. Many sentence begin or include that this is a belief. That being said, the subjects of who believes the theory are left in the footnotes and citations. T

The criticism section seems somewhat weak. I am not well-versed in the schools of thought when it comes to the theory, but only mentioning one contrasting opinion seems disingenuous. Eggert's research is not really given the light of day, as his opinion is nearly stated without qualifying this with his expertise or research credentials. Further, cursory research shows that he comes from an older generation of archeologists, begging the question on if there is more recent criticism.

Sources:

I have not found a link that does not work, and sources seem to back up claims in the article. The sources seem to come from various reputable, well-researched sources. Particularly notable is the large amount of sources that come from more scientific publications, with many of the links leading to the National Library of Medicine. Other notable sources include the Journal of African History, The African Archaeological Review, and Current Anthropology.

Talk page:

While there seem to be discussions on the page, few edits or conversations have been made recently. Wikipedians generally believe it is not a high quality article. Some take offense to specific areas or time periods that were missed. One editor mentioned the "Pygmy" term I used. This seems like a difficult scenario because the term does have its own Wikipedia page, therefore providing something to link to. There is clearly debate about whether the theory is true or not, with Wikipedians casting evidence at eachother to either prove or disprove the theory.

The article is rated C-class. It is classified as top-important for the Zimbabwe page.