User:Evanalst93/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: (link) . Archaeology of religion and ritual
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I chose this article because I have an interested and a base line knowledge of the topic.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead is introductory and informative. It explains the the topic and the themes that will be presented through the rest of the wikipedia page.
It is concise.
Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
The articles's content is relevant to the topic and includes the large
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Is the content up-to-date?
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Content evaluation
[edit]The article's content is relevant to the topic and includes the main anthropological/archaeological texts/literature relevant.
Though the content is relevant, many of the citations are older. The citations are from the late 1990s to the early 2000s with very little texts coming from the last 10 years.
Updated content would be necessary for the article to be fully realized, there also needs to be a broader understanding of the topic including more up to date citations and more case studies/examples.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
The article is somewhat neutral. I think it represents all view points on the topic but there seems to be a more post-processual approach.
Overall, the article tends to view religion and ritual as something someone believes in and not a part of western society.
Viewpoints include all the relevant literature with a particular focus on western scholars views on non-western religion.
It may persuade readers to think about religion at the individual level not the institutional.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Yes, everything seems to be from a reliable source.
The sources reflect the available literature on the topic.
The sources are from 15 years ago or older.
The links are still available but many of them are older articles or books that are not available online. Some of the articles may not be accessible for those not in academia.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
It is well written, organized, it does not have spelling errors or grammar issues.
It is organized in a way that makes sense, the sections are broken down in a matter that a reader can understand.
The major points of the topic are reflected in the organization.
Organization evaluation
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Are images well-captioned?
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]There are no images.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- Guiding questions
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
Talk page evaluation
[edit]Talk of including newer and more relevant case studies are taking place.
The article is rated C and part of WikiProject Archaeology.
N/A
Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
- What is the article's overall status?
- What are the article's strengths?
- How can the article be improved?
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
Overall evaluation
[edit]The article, overall, is a good start. It gives a good overview of the topic and shows the interdisciplinary themes and literature of the topic.
The article needs new and updated case studies and citations.
I think it's medium developed? It's a good start but could vastly be improved.
Optional activity
[edit]- 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 — ~~~~
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Overall, the article tends to view religion and ritual as something someone (non-western archaeological cultures) believe in. It marginalizes non-western voices. Viewpoints include all the relevant literature with a particular focus on western scholar's views on non-western religion. Maybe include some anthropologists/archaeologists who are studying their ancestors to get a better view of these outdated archaeological projects.
- Link to feedback: