User talk:Kahanab/Evaluate an Article

Anthropology I chose this article because this is the course I am taking right now. This course is the reason I am learning how to edit on Wikipedia. I think this source is important because a lot of people don't understand what Anthropology is and it plays a huge role in history and our day-to-day lives. I think this article was super well written and contains a lot of quality information that you can use to learn about Anthropology.

Like most Wikipedia articles, the article I chose about Anthropology, starts off with a definition explaining what anthropology is. I believe this is a good lead for this article because it cuts right to the chase, leaving no room for irrelevant information. The article has a good explanation of what anthropology is and then goes on to talk about the basic history of anthropology. I don't think any important information is missing but there could definitely be a long introduction about the topic. The introduction only really includes the definition of Anthropology, but it could include more about the basics of Anthropology and maybe when it was discovered. Even though the introduction is broad, the content in the rest of the article is super easy to read and gives a lot of information on the history of anthropology. The sources and link all work when you click on them and every fact is cited properly. There are over 100 sites that were used to create this article, and to me, they all look valid. The article demonstrates good use of facts and the topic being discussed is covered well. On the talk page, there aren't any discussions going on, but there is an alert saying that the dates in the article should stay in BC/AD format. Even though there are no discussions on the talk page, I still think this is a valid article because it's possible that the content doesn't need to be commented on. Not many images are used in this article, but where images are used, they are properly cited and relate to the topic. Anthropology isn't really something visual you see so images aren't needed to explain what it is. Lastly, the article is from a neutral standpoint and the text doesn't feel persuasive, just informative.

Overall, I think that this article is an example of a complete and good article. There are a bunch of topics discussed in the article to give us a better understanding of Anthropology. It's safe to say that this article would be of good use if you were writing a paper or needed research. The only big changes that should be made are the introduction and use of images. The introduction could have a better explanation of anthropology and explain what is brought up later in the article. The images are kind of vague and definitely more images can be used, But all in all the quality of this article is good and for the most part, is complete. There is always room for improvement. Kahanab (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)