User:Pedrigal/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: (Alfredo E. Evangelista)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose to analyze Alfredo E. Evangelista's wikipedia article because he was a prominent Filipino archaeologist; he contributed to the field of archaeology through several excavations throughout the Philippines as well as directing the Anthropology Division of the National Museum of the Philippines.

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 section prior to the biography does include one introductory sentence (includes the dates of his life and his title). However, it is extremely short and does not delve any further into details as an archaeologist. Even though it does include a Contents box with an outline of the article's major sections, I would have liked to see sentences that briefly describe each section. The one sentence included in the Lead does reiterate the dates of his lifespan and his title of significance, which are details that could be found in the subsequent Biography section. The lead is so concise that it is actually lacking info and would benefit from the inclusion of 3-4 sentences of introductory sentences of Evangelista's role as an archaeologist, or about his major works.

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
The article on Alfredo E. Evangelista does contain relevant information that is up-to-date depending on the section. More specifically, I noticed that there is a warning posted from February 2018 in the Works and Contributions section which states that this "article has multiple issues": the section's tone/style does not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia and the section relies largely on a sing source. This means that the content in the Works and Contributions section still has to be updated in order to meet wikipedia's standard, which has yet to be done since February 2018. Also, as noted previously, there is a lot of content missing from the Lead section about Evangelista's role as an archaeologist and what is significant about him that makes him a notable character in archaeology.

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
Overall, the article is neutral because it presents facts through an unbiased perspective in each of the sections: Biography, Educational Background, and Works and Contributions. I perused through the article and there aren't any claims that are heavily biased toward a particular position. Since this a relatively biography, there aren't any viewpoints that are either overrepresented or underrepresented because the main type of writing is just the presentation of facts. There is no analysis or commentary being made, and thus, the article does not persuade the reader to lean towards any specific position since there are no SIDES being presented as a thesis in the beginning.

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
Most of the facts in the article is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, except for the Works and Contributions section (which I have previously noted before). There are a variety of four sources that range from Filipino newspaper articles, books written by Evangelista himself, and government websites. It makes sense that there aren't any published journals because this is an article in the form of a biography, and not an article on a particular subject where there is research/experiments/data involved. The publication dates of the sources range from 2008 - 2009, which is towards the later end of Evangelista's lifespan.

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 presents data without any stylistic writing. Evangelista's biography is relatively short and easy to read. I would say that it is written without much grammar or spelling errors, which meets the standards of "good writing" on wikipedia. The article is well-organized in the sense that it includes the relevant sections that would be meaningful for someone who is trying to research more about Evangelista for a future book, or research paper and needs a place to start their investigation.

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 includes zero pictures--it doesn't even include a picture of Evangelista! This makes it extremely hard to imagine what this man looks like and what he did that was so significant. Granted, he did live during a time before the social media age when taking pictures was the norm of society, and he probably did not have someone paint him a self portrait given that he was not royalty or part of the social elite. There are no pictures of his excavations or the academic institutions that was a part of his life.

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 is no activity in the talk page; I did not see any type of conversations being made and no ratings made for this article. This wikipedia article discusses information that was not mentioned in lecture.

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
This article on Alfredo E. Evangelista that is presented as a biography provides enough information for any person that is looking for a quick read into notable Filipino figures in archaeology. One strength of this article is that the Educational Background section goes into detail of his motivations for going into the field of archaeology. The article can be improved by including more sources within the Works and Contributions page such that there is a wider variety. Overall, the article is not as developed as it could be because it is extremely short. If I were to make edits on this page, I would definitely add 1-2 pictures (including one of this man) and I would add more introductory information to the Lead section.

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: