User:Moj9/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: Negrito
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I have chosen to evaluate the Negrito and their origins because there is a clear lack of information on the wikipedia page and I am interested in learning about new people, especially from that region of the world, I am also very interested in how groups of people come together and form who they are.

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?
- Of what's on the article, the introduction gives a good description.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- There is information in the intro that is not found elsewhere in the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The lead contains information that is unneeded there, so it is overly detailed.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Most of the information within the article is on topic and related to the Negrito people. However there is a lot of relevant information missing from the article and what is there is not well elaborated on.
Is the content up-to-date?
- Most of the sources that the article pulls from were published within the last 20 years which makes it appear to be up-to-date, but some research shows that the existing information can be elaborated on with much more recent information.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- There is a fair amount of information missing from all aspects of the article, but the genetic heading does not have anything added to it, leaving a large gap.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- This article does talk about underrepresented people as there is not information available in the main stream about them, however, the information listed on the article is not nearly as much as it should be.

Is the article neutral?
- The article uses neutral terminology which makes the article read unbiased.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- There is not any claims that feel heavily biased
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- The origin of the name looks like it takes up quite a bit of room on the article, but it is only a paragraph and a sentence which is enough to help explain what is trying to be put across.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- The article does not attempt to persuade one way or the other.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- The sources are all reliable and back-up the provided information, however, a few dead links exist which hinders properly checking all of them.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Most of the sources are peer-reviewed and lengthy studies on the topic, however this is primarily talking about the haplogroups.
Are the sources current?
- The oldest source says it was published in 2002 and the most recent was 2019. However a book is listed as 1910-1911 so some of the information is current and some is not.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- A majority of the authors are from western regions of Europe and from the US.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- A majority of the links work

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- The article is clear but not very concise in some places. Quite of the information feels like it was drawn out.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- I did not see any major issues with either grammar or spelling
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- The article is broken into multiple sections which help keep information separated, it is fairly well organized.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- The article includes images but a lot of them do not fit in where they are put. Some are just thrown in.
Are images well-captioned?
- The images have captions that tell exactly what is on the images, so yes.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- They are not visually appealing in their current arrangement.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- Most of the topics on the talk page speak of issues they have with the limited issues they have and the not 100% accurate representation from the authors about the sources they choose.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- This article is part of the India, Southeast Asia, and Ethnic Groups wikiprojects. In all three it's listed as High-Importance, in Ethnic Groups it's listed as B-Class while the others list it as Start Class
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- The talk page on this article doesn't really feel as professional or friendly in some places where class very much is both of those.

What is the article's overall status?
- The article is listed as Start Class and High Importance
What are the article's strengths?
- The article does a fairly good job of talking about the haplogroups, but it's also the only thing on the page that has some amount of extensive information posted.
How can the article be improved?
- The article could be improved by having more work and research done into all parts of the article.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- I would call the article largely underdeveloped and in serious need of improvement.

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 — ~~~~