User:Sfalkenh/Evaluate an Article

Copper Inuit
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Copper Inuit
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because it relates back to the subject of North American native peoples but zeroes in on a specific group in a remote part of the continent and I think that that might be something that slips through the cracks.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, not really
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it is relatively concise but some of the information could be moved down to the main section with all the content.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I can think of

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, there doesn't appear to be a lot of bias either way.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, all of this is pretty objective.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, there's not really a super partisan view to take on this topic
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, see above

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I can see
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, three
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, could be a little better, but yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Basically none
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated Start-Class. Part of WikiProject Canada, which is aiming to improve Wikipedia articles about Canada.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It doesn't necessarily talk about positive or negative changes brought about by settlement; in class, we've spent more time talking about the consequences and aspects of assimilation

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It has a long way to go in terms of being fully fleshed out and having a more comprehensive breadth of information. What it has is good, but it's not very much.
 * What are the article's strengths? While the information is sparse, it does cover a wide range of topics surrounding the Copper Inuit
 * How can the article be improved? Needs more volume, it's pretty bare bones
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped; not poorly developed, but lacks volume.

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: