User:Sumeya333/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Name of article: (link) Sweet Track Sweet Track
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I've chosen to evaluate this article because it will give me a better of sense of what to look for as a work in progress. The article itself looks to be recently updated, so I have the opportunity to work and learn alongside other editors on this. This Sweet Track is also an interesting piece of history to learn about.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The article begind with an introductory sentence that clearly and concisely describe the article. It describes what the Sweet Track is, where it is located, and the use of this ancient road all in one sentence and using minimal wording. Gets directly to the point. In the introduction, the Lead does include a brief description of all the different sections of the article, pointing out the history, locatoin, use, construction and conservation to begin with, although I believe there is too much detail in the conservation introduction.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead does include enough information for an introduction and describes Sweet Tack with a short summary of the detailed sections to come.

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * The articles content is relevant and up to date with the topic, however there is more information in the section titled 'discovery' than there is in the history, use, build, and significance of Sweet Track as an as ancient trackway.

Content evaluation
The content is enough for an elementary understanding of the environment surroudning Sweet Track and how its discovery came to be. One aspect of this content I would immediately like to adjust is the missing context- some ideas are introduced without necessary build up or description, for e.g. the Somerset Levels Project (which is also missing a link and/or refernece). Some words also have uneccesary added context, i.e. dendrochronology.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The article does feel neautral, although I'm unsure of whether the fact that some sections have more detail that others is inherent bias or just a lack of research or references on certain topics.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone overall is informative and neutral, no persuading the reader to favor one position over another.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * Most facts are cited and backed by a source in the references section, but some are missing a source. The few links I have clicked all work and are reliable, peer reviewed articles and archaeological journals. Most as PDF's.

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is written well- it is clear, concise and easy to read. There are no grammatical or spelling errors, and it is fairly well-organized.

Organization evaluation
One thing I would change about the layout/organization of the article is place the history and contruction in the beginning, rather than a section about the person who found it- I would move this to the end, just before conservation.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * The pictures could be enlarged for easier access and so that readers may view the track in detail, and if possible I would add a short video.

Images and media evaluation
Overall the images could be enlarged and better spaced out, rather than confined to the right side of the page/end of the paragraph.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The coversation on the talk page span from talks about adding external links (something I am interested in) to questions about accurate dating and nonsensical sentences. The article is rated a featrured article that could still use some work.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * Overall, the article is neutral in tone, informative, but still lacking information based on the number of in-text citations, lack of pictures and diagrams, and overall length. Some of its strengths include the articles concise manner and various talk points.

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: