User:Laurela2020/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: (Archaeological looting)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article to evaluate because when I heard about archaeological looting in my archaeology class, it sounded interesting to me.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, the lead's introductory sentence is the definition of archaeological looting.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- The lead is the only section of this article, so it only gives a brief introduction to the topic.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- The lead is the only section of this article so it provides all of the information for the page.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The lead seems somewhat concise, I think it is a bit confusing and could use some more organization to make more sense.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- The only content on the page is in the lead, but what is in the lead is relevant to the topic.
Is the content up-to-date?
- From what I know about archaeological looting at this point, the page seems up to date.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- I think that there needs to be more content on the different types of archaeological looting and there needs to be a section on the page about why archaeological looting is bad.

Is the article neutral?
- The article does seem neutral to me.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- There does not seem to me to be any heavily biased statements in the article.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- I do not see any viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No the article does not seem to persuade in one way or another.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- I think that the statement in the article about what countries are considered rich in archaeology could use a source.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- There needs to be more sources on the article, I think that using the American Journal of Archaeology on an article about archaeology was good.
Are the sources current?
- The sources are from within the last 15 years, which could be considered current because archaeology has been going on for a long time.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes, both of the links work for me.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- The article is easy to read but some of the statements I believe could use sources to back them up.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- I do not see any grammatical or spelling errors.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- There are not any sections to this article beyond the lead of the article.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- No, there are not any included images.
Are images well-captioned?
- There are no images in this article.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- There are no images in this article.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- There are no images in this article.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- There are no conversations on the talk page of this article.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- The article is rated of high importance on the project's importance scale. It is part of two WikiProjects, Archaeology and Crime.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- We have not learned much beyond what archaeology looting is in class, so this article goes beyond the scope of what we have learned in class.

What is the article's overall status?
- The article's status is that it needs more sections on the topic included on it.
What are the article's strengths?
- Some of the strengths include that the definition was provided correctly.
How can the article be improved?
- It can be improved by the use of more sources and more information on the topic.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- I think that the article has a good start and it definitely needs more information to add to it.

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 — ~~~~