User:Syknox1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Klasies River Caves

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The article lacks some citations and general organization. Sources are from pre-2010 with no recent contributions to research at the cave.

Evaluate the article
The organization of the article requires work as the topics do not align completely with what is mentioned in the introduction. The content requires updated sources since most are from the 1990s and early 2000s; there is no inclusion of more current research. The section on cannibalism is poorly written and sources are not linked. The article's writing quality is lacking outside of the introductory paragraph -- it requires editing for clarity and comprehension. There is no media included. The talk page has not been updated in recent years. This article is a poorly developed starter article and would be improved with inclusion of current research and revision for grammatical and structural errors.

Lead Section


 * 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
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Content


 * the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? No
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content without sources.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone & Balance


 * 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? Cannibalism is over represented
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? N/A
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources & References


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? No
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and Writing Quality


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, plenty throughout
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is organized, but poorly and some sections need removed/ added

Images & Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Talk page discussion


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Nothing new since 2008
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Starter class
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? No talk about stratigraphy or microstratigraphy, "evidence of cooking" not described

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Starter class, needs work
 * What are the article's strengths? Has good intro, and relevant information throughout
 * How can the article be improved? Organization, clarity, and grammar
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is underdeveloped