User:Ph1275/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Legal anthropology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Why I chose this article was that it was under the article options we could choose from. I think this article was a good article to choose because I had an Anthropology class before so the topic was familiar to me and I didn't know much about the legal side of it so it sounded interesting to me.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section:


 * The lead does include an introductory sentence and it is clear and does give a brief introduction of the topic.
 * The lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections, especially in the first 4 sentences after the main questions asked.
 * I think the lead isn't concise or overly detailed, in my opinion it had a good length and amount of details that is needed in the lead section.

Content:


 * I believe the content is relevant to the topic. It includes a good number of related contents
 * The contents are up to date when looking at the topic. The main topic is about law and culture and how these two connect to each other and the contents used are relevant and dated to when the topic is related to.
 * The article doesn't have any missing content in my opinion. I am not very experienced on reviewing articles however, I think there is enough content and it is not too much or too little.
 * I didn't find any equity gaps and it doesn't address topics that are underrepresented.

Tone and Balance:


 * Yes, the article is neutral.
 * There are no claims that appear heavily biased.
 * I couldn't find any claims that were over or under represented.
 * I couldn't stop any minority or fringe viewpoints.
 * This article is more of an informative article and therefore it doesn't involve much of a persuasion towards a certain viewpoint.

Source and references:


 * Yes, all the facts in the article is backed up by different sources.
 * Yes these sources do reflect the literature in the topic.
 * Most of these sources were current, some of them are historical sources that are older.
 * These sources were written by. a diverse spectrum authors, it included several different sources. They also included 3-4 historically marginalized individuals in paragraph two.
 * The sources used were good sources, I am sure there is always better sources to use but from what I found out is that the sources were good.
 * Yes the links I clicked on do work.

Organization and writing quality:


 * For the most part the article was well written, the only part I found a bit confusing was "case study" section, I had to read that twice to fully understand the material but I think that's mostly because I was a bit confused in general.
 * Since English is not my first language I am not super great at finding grammatical errors but from reading it I couldn't find any.
 * The article was very organized, this was one of the things I really liked about the article. It was well sectioned and organized and relevant.

Images and media:


 * The article doesn't include images that enhance the understanding of the topic except one or two pictures of the historical sources that is cited.
 * Since there is not much images included there is not captions as well.
 * There are no images provided.
 * The only images available are the ones in the sources so I can't really answer this question.

Talk page discussion:


 * There is no conversations going on.
 * The article is not part of any WikiProjects and how its rated is I think good. I wasn't able to find anything that caught my eye.
 * The way this is different from what we talked about it in class is that this goes more in depth of it.

Overall impressions:


 * The overall status of the article is good in my opinion.
 * The strengths of the article is the way it was organized and how it had sources to help the reader better understand the main points.
 * How the article can be improved is to have a few more related images included and also to maybe use sources that more up to date.
 * I would say that the article is well developed, it just needs a few minor improvements to become better.