User:Sgc43/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: Anthropology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I've chosen to evaluate this article because it involves my academic interests.

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?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is appropriately concise.

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?
 * As it's a very broad topic, it would be hard to evaluate whether or not there is minor content missing, but the article addresses all of the major elements of the subject.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, especially since the discipline concerns itself with studying human culture and society.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article discusses mostly the history, development, and practices of American and British anthropology, without reference to those of other nations. However, this may be the subject of another article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

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.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are mostly written by men, with very few references to authors outside of the US and UK.
 * 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, there is a very natural flow throughout the article.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I noticed.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, but some of the sections should be rearranged. For example, a history of the field makes up the first section, followed by various sections that break down key topics, with another historical developments in the field thrown in, when it would make more sense for it to be included in the previous history section.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, they are concisely and relevantly captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they are regularly interspersed throughout the article and do not interrupt the flow of text.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Unsettlingly, there are some anti-feminist and crude conversations going on at the top of the talk page, but underneath it are contributions from graduate students in anthropology contributing their thoughts on the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated C-class in quality and is a part of two WikiProjects: WikiProjects Anthropology and WikiProjects Primates.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is a fair amount of fighting, hate speech, and bullying in the Talk page that is different from the atmosphere that was implied by the Wikipedia trainings.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall, the article seemed very clear, thoroughly edited, and full of pertinent information.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It provides a broad and thorough overview of anthropology's sub-disciplines and its history.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The organization of the sections could be more intuitively arranged.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article seemed very well-developed.

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: