User:Rosemary Bencher/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: (link) Cognitive archaeology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: The entire article is fairly short and only lists one source from a book published in 1981 in its Bibliography. I feel like there is much that can be improved upon since cognitive archaeology is a topic we've already covered in class and I know somewhat about it already.

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:

'''Overall, the Lead section could be more detailed. It does include an introductory sentence but even this could be edited to more clearly describe what cognitive archaeology is. There are no citations in the Lead. The article does not have clear structure or any separation of major sections. It only gives one example of the kind of cognitive archaeology practiced by Thomas Huffman. The Lead itself takes up most of the article.'''

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's content is relevant to the topic but more information could be added. There are insufficiently developed points and the content that is there may not be up-to-date since the only source listed is from 1981.'''

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:

'''The article does express the information in a neutral way. However, the author shares information about archaeologists who are critical of cognitive archaeology but does not provide information about those who are proponents of this theory or approach. The article doesn't necessarily attempt to persuade the reader one way or another, it just doesn't provide a well-rounded enough point of view.'''

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

==== The links to secondary source information are reliable and redirect to the corresponding readings when clicked on. However, I would say it is unclear about which facts they are backing up since nothing is cited in the Lead which makes up most of the article. There are only 3 references and 1 source in the bibliography so I doubt these sources reflect all available literature on the topic. The sources do seem to be from reliable publishers but some of the sources are rather dated. I know of at least one more modern source from the assigned class readings we had. ====

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 could be written in a more concise and clear way. There are no blatant grammatical or spelling errors that I could pick out as of yet. The main thing is that the article does not have enough information, so it is not broken down into major points or sections about the topic. ====

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
'''There are no images to enhance the understanding of the topic. There is only a long, block quote on the right side of the page from Aubrey Burl's book, Rites of the Gods (1981), which is also listed as the major source. The article could be greatly improved with some well-captioned images.'''

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
'''The talk page addresses how some external links have been modified. The article is rated Stub-class which means it is simply a very basic description of the topic. It is part of the WikiProject Archaeology. The article doesn't mention many aspects of cognitive archaeology that were discussed in the reading "How did people think" by Bahn (2012). For instance, it only briefly touches on the topic of 'cave art' which seemed more integral to cognitive archaeology in Bahn's evaluation. The article also does not describe the importance of religion in cognitive archaeology or archaeo-astronomy the way that Bahn's chapter does.'''

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
'''The article's overall status is Stub-class on the quality scale and it has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. It's strengths are that it's succinct and ultimately does not stray from the topic of cognitive archaeology. However, there's a lot that could be elaborated on and added. The article is underdeveloped at this time.'''

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: