User:Trh50/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: Artifact (archaeology)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen this article to evaluate because it is an important term that relates back to archaeology. I also chose this article because it has been revised several times by a few different users, but it is very short and could be improved.

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? Yes
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is very concise.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes it is relevant to the topic.
Is the content up-to-date? Yes it was edited today.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There needs to be more in depth examples of artifacts, they explain what it's not, but they do not focus on what it is.

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? No
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, there are some sentences that do not have a source attached.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are through considering the topic. There are surely more sources available on the topic that were not accessed.
Are the sources current? Only 1 of the sources has been published in the last 3 years.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is concise and easy to read.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. Some of the other editors argue that it is not well organized and too short.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes the article has several images.
Are images well-captioned? Yes, they have informative captions.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, the first photo is public domain and the other two photos are free to use for any purpose.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Discussion over the spelling of the term and whether or not the British English version of the word should be included.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as a Start Class article. It is part of Wikiproject Archaeology.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It is very similar to what was discussed in class.

What is the article's overall status? It is rated as Top Importance.
What are the article's strengths? Clarifying what an artifact is not is a strength.
How can the article be improved? There could be more examples and it could be lengthened.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped, the information in accurate but it could be more thorough and detailed.

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 — ~~~~