User:Skoobie03/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Tham Lod rockshelter)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(It chose this article because it is in the area we are learning about, it matter because it shows habitation of Homo sapiens and can provide a look into the lives of early humans in the area. I think it is an okay article, it has good information it just leaves me wanting more. The topics are limited to single paragraphs, and a few are only a few sentences long. This is a fantastic start on the topic and with a little more information it could be a great page)

Evaluate the article
(Lead: The lead has good details, it needs organization. Combine and shift around a few sentences and the flow of information would be better. Some sentences provide details and others are bland.  It does provide a brief description of the article, although the wording she uses to describe the article in lead is different than used in the body paragraphs. They are close and can be inferred, but I saw it as confusing at first.

Content: The content here is lacking but it is a good start. The content is relevant to the topic and for up to date, the last study of the site seems to be in 2006, and the newest source was from 2014. These are probably the most current direct sources. As for missing info, I would have to read the sources and see what did not make article. The article has a section "hunting and toolmaking" and hunting is talked about only in the first sentence and it is a statement made with no explanation as to how that conclusion was made. As far as "equity gaps" I do not think that it specifically targets that. It tells of these people that had a tool workshop in a rock shelter in Northern Thailand in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene.

Tone: I thought the tone was nice and balanced. I could almost hear the monotonous tone of the voice typing it. Tone is clear and presents facts as facts. There are moments where a few claims are made, cited, but not explained to the reader. Forcing them to read the source themselves. I did not detect any persuasion from the author to the reader. I also did not detect any minority viewpoints.

Sources: Ten sources from different authors and different years. They are peer reviewed and published. They have secondary source. They are thorough and are current enough to not complain about it. Based on names, I would say that some of the authors fit into marginalized categories. The links I clicked worked and brought me to the source pdf.

Organization and writing quality: This section needs some work. There is a section that is only two sentences, sections are lumped together when they need to be split up, some need expanding. Some sentences you can tell that they are "filler". This is a good skeleton to work form. I have only saw one grammatical error and no misspellings or typos.

Images and Media: This area is lacking. There is only one image, it is a current map of Thailand with three red dots on it marking the location. Maybe there are no open source photos to use of the findings, maybe they were behind schedule and turned in the bare minimum.

Talk page discussion: The talk page was empty except for one message from the original creator. "Great job. two comment:" That's it. not a real active talk page. It is a part of three wikiprojects: Creation, Archaeology, Thailand.

Overall impressions: This is a great start and provide enough nuggets to get interested and start a thirst for more knowledge of this site and its findings. It could be improved if the writing was cleaned up a bit and more information was added in a few sections. I would call this a under/poorly developed article. It has good info, it just needs more and what is there needs better organized.)