User:Sidrair/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
I chose to write about the article Homo Luzonensis, because that discovery is arguably what put the Philippines on the map in terms of international archaeology, and is very important in understanding the course of human history. The article is fairly short as well, which means that there is room for improvement and more information, which gives more for me to evaluate, rather than a fully fleshed out page.

Lead

 * The lead of this article's first sentence is not fully written out in the standard Wikipedia fashion. It is very short and not descriptive enough to give a full understanding of who or what Homo Luzonensis is. It would have served better to explain its origin, location, and significance in a few words. The rest of the lead, however, is very well-done and gives a good summary of what the article is about, what the discovery of Homo Luzonensis means for society, and the various scholars and researchers who have spoken about it– in both quote and paraphrase form. I think as a whole, the lead is well done because it gives a good understanding of the topic in a way that allows it to differ from the rest of the article.

Content

 * The content is relevant and helps readers to get a basic understanding of the topic. It is not very long or detailed, so one cannot go to the Wikipedia page for a large, varied source of information. The content does indeed have up to date information, as they have sources that come from as recently as May of 2019. I believe that it's missing sections that could help make this a better resource on the subject, including topics such as social/historical implications in the Philippines, site conservation, research, and a timeline of history and/or discovery. Also, I think that the existing sections could be improved in length and detail, particularly the subsection titled Significance, as there is only one sentence on the topic, and there is certainly a lot more available about what this discovery means for our understanding of human evolution.
 * The content is relevant and helps readers to get a basic understanding of the topic. It is not very long or detailed, so one cannot go to the Wikipedia page for a large, varied source of information. The content does indeed have up to date information, as they have sources that come from as recently as May of 2019. I believe that it's missing sections that could help make this a better resource on the subject, including topics such as social/historical implications in the Philippines, site conservation, research, and a timeline of history and/or discovery. Also, I think that the existing sections could be improved in length and detail, particularly the subsection titled Significance, as there is only one sentence on the topic, and there is certainly a lot more available about what this discovery means for our understanding of human evolution.

Tone and Balance

 * I would argue that the article is completely neutral in its delivery– simply giving the reader the facts of the topic, and not leaning towards any biases. Anything that could be even remotely considered biased has attributions to a scholar, and thus does not put any biases on the Wikipedia editors themselves. This is mostly factual and not controversial in subject, so there is not much opportunity for persuasion.

Sources and References

 * The sources for this article all seem to be very comprehensive and reliable. In fact, there is one from Ignicco et al., who we read in this course as well. I think the sources do not reflect as much of the available resources as it could– it is missing out on news sources, and more of the research articles available. The links are all very current, thorough, and valid (as in they all work). I think the editors could have even pulled out more information from the sources they have, as many are very long and thorough articles. However, it is a useful works cited page for readers to peruse through to gain more insight on the topic.
 * The sources for this article all seem to be very comprehensive and reliable. In fact, there is one from Ignicco et al., who we read in this course as well. I think the sources do not reflect as much of the available resources as it could– it is missing out on news sources, and more of the research articles available. The links are all very current, thorough, and valid (as in they all work). I think the editors could have even pulled out more information from the sources they have, as many are very long and thorough articles. However, it is a useful works cited page for readers to peruse through to gain more insight on the topic.

Organization

 * I think that the article is very well written. It is very concise, and a great mix of academic jargon and understandable words. Anything confusing is linked to a related Wikipedia article, which is very helpful (for instance, for those who don't know what the Wallace Line is, it's linked). I did not catch any grammar or spelling errors in my read throughs. I feel like what subsections they did have were broken down in a way that made sense, particularly for the relatively small amount of information they had. However, as I said in the content section, I would have added more to make the article more clear and full. I think in general, the writing style and information given is very accessible to people at varied reading levels and levels of archaeological understanding.
 * I think that the article is very well written. It is very concise, and a great mix of academic jargon and understandable words. Anything confusing is linked to a related Wikipedia article, which is very helpful (for instance, for those who don't know what the Wallace Line is, it's linked). I did not catch any grammar or spelling errors in my read throughs. I feel like what subsections they did have were broken down in a way that made sense, particularly for the relatively small amount of information they had. However, as I said in the content section, I would have added more to make the article more clear and full. I think in general, the writing style and information given is very accessible to people at varied reading levels and levels of archaeological understanding.

Images and Media

 * The images are quite valuable and fully encompassing of the content of the article. They have photos of the five discovered teeth, a metatarsal bone, and the interior of Callao Cave where the bones were found. The captions give you enough information about what the viewer is seeing without being too wordy or overwhelming– it is quite clear and concise. The photos are credited to one of the Wikipedia editors, which either means they are stolen, or they are indeed from somebody who has visited the sites and done research. The photos make visual sense int their layout, as they are placed near the topics that go with them.

Checking the talk page

 * There is not much on the talk page for this article, but one person seems to have dominated the edits and left some notes on the talk page, and a couple others left very nice compliments. This article is part of WikiProjects for anthropology, paleontology, primates, Southeast Asia, and Tambayan Philippines, and are related start-class mid-performance in all of those projects, which is how I also would rate it. We spoke of this topic in class through the lens of many more academic journals and news sources. One editor noted that they think there is not much more information than what is on the Wikipedia page, and they must wait for more research to be published. Perhaps Wikipedia editors do not have the ability to visit the same academic resources and sites we do as students, and thus are given less access to information, but I feel that in class we had a much more detailed account of Homo Luzonensis than what I got from the Wikipedia page.
 * There is not much on the talk page for this article, but one person seems to have dominated the edits and left some notes on the talk page, and a couple others left very nice compliments. This article is part of WikiProjects for anthropology, paleontology, primates, Southeast Asia, and Tambayan Philippines, and are related start-class mid-performance in all of those projects, which is how I also would rate it. We spoke of this topic in class through the lens of many more academic journals and news sources. One editor noted that they think there is not much more information than what is on the Wikipedia page, and they must wait for more research to be published. Perhaps Wikipedia editors do not have the ability to visit the same academic resources and sites we do as students, and thus are given less access to information, but I feel that in class we had a much more detailed account of Homo Luzonensis than what I got from the Wikipedia page.

Overall impressions

 * Overall, this is a very good start for an article on Homo Luzonensis, and the editors who have worked on it have added the most vital, unbiased information to get a very broad sense of the subject. The strength is the lead and description, that allows for a very understandable and clear read. The photos, organization, and writing style are additionally all very well done. However, the other subsections could be more detailed, and there are a lot more subsections that I argue that would be useful to add. I do not think that this is a complete article by any means, but what is available is well developed, and great roots for what could be a very substantial article in the future.