User:Baraganomf/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: Norte Chico civilization
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I honestly choose the first article that I saw. After reading the introduction, I found that I was actually really interested in the civilization. So, I decided that this would be the article that I wanted to evaluate.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, the lease of the article includes a sentence that immediately describes the pre-columbian society. The lead also gives reference to the original location of the civilization.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Yes, the lead touches briefly on the contents of the article.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- The lead is just that a lead. Not all the information that will be in the article is addressed in the lead. However, the author does do his best to hint at the information or at least touch on it prior to continuing to the rest of the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- I believe that the lead may be a tad over detailed however it is clear that the individual who wrote this wanted to convey as much information about the civilization as possible.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- The articles content is completely relevant to the topic and shares a generous amount of information on the Norte Chico civilization.
Is the content up-to-date?
- The content is up-to-date -- the last edit may on this page was on August 20, 2020. There has been multiple edits made on this article to contribute to the current writing.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Since I am not an expert on the subject, I would not necessarily know if there is content missing. However, everything that was discussed in the introduction is seen through the rest of the article.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes, the article seems very neutral and factual.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No, there are no claims that appear to be heavily biased. In fact, most of the sources are backed with citation.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- The viewpoints seem fair and factual to me.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes, all facts seem to be backed up by a reliable secondary source and many editors have ensured that the sources have been double checked.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, the sources are very thorough and reflect what the main focus of the article.
Are the sources current?
- Yes, the sources ranging in age with the most recent source published in 2008.
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?
- The article is well-written and somewhat easy to read. However, I believe that the author could of concise the material a little bit better.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- To my best knowledge, after reading the article I found no spelling errors.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, it is well organized and outlined very well.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes
Are images well-captioned?
- Yes, the images are well-captioned and some contain sources.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes
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?
- The article has a lot going on in the talk page -- mostly on sources and some in a TO DO list.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- This article is an FA and apart of the WikiProject Peru.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- It does much really in my opinion. I believe that many of the individuals editing the page are just looking to ensure the contents of the article are correct. The conversations in the article are mostly about working towards insuring that fact -- like many of the discussion we have in class.

What is the article's overall status?
- The articles status is TOP FA.
What are the article's strengths?
- The article has a lot of wonderful information about a civilization that was once lost.
How can the article be improved?
- I believe the information could be a lot more condensed.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- The article is well developed with clear sources and multiple edits.

~~~~ Baraganomf (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC) baraganomf