User:Zionnalof/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

(Provide a link to the article here.)

History of the Incas

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it needs more evaluation and has a lack of sources. I believe it matters because they were thought to be one of the ancient groups of the South American country, Peru. Prior to beginning to make edits, I thought the article is well developed, but it needs to be rewritten for clarity and articulation. I plan to edit the grammar and flow of the article, check citations, and input additional information from other sources regarding archaeological finds. If possible I would like to update the media with images regarding the site and of the Inca tribe.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

A. Lead section

• Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

I believe the lead sentence is effective but could be edited for clarity and an additional description of the major sections.

• Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes, to some extent, the lead section does briefly touch on the major sections of the article.

• Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

No, all the information in the lead section is present in the article.

• Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead section is concise and to the point.

B.     Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.

• Is the content up-to-date?

Yes, the content is up-to-date.

• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Yes, there is additional information that could be added.

• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No, the article narrows in on a historical finding not concerning underrepresented populations or topics.

C. Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

• Is the article neutral?

The article is not written neutrally, there is speculation and concluding remarks.

• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, there are no claims that appear to favor a particular position.

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The representation of viewpoints is mostly equal.

• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, the article remains factual throughout.  d. Sources and References

 D. Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

No, there are citations missing.

• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

No, the sources do not reflect the available material on the topic.

• Are the sources current?

Yes, the sources are up-to-date.

• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

No there are only a few authors.

• Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Yes, there are books.

• Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, the links are accessible.

E.  Organization and writing quality

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is mostly well-written but could be improved.
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Yes, the article has a few grammatical errors.

• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
• Yes, the article is well-organized and chronologically fitting.

 F. Images and Media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes, there are images that enhance understanding of the topic.

• Are images well-captioned?

Yes, the images have a caption providing a description

• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes, the images adhere to the copyright regulations for the site.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes, the images are laid out in an appealing way.

         

G. Talk page discussion

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The conversations in the talk page discuss grammar editing and citations. Further, other Wikipedians recommended newer photos. h. Overall impressions

H. Overall impressions

• What is the article's overall status?

The article is a good start to the topic.

• What are the article's strengths?

The article has a few subsections aiding the development of the article.

• How can the article be improved?

The article could be improved by using additional information or media

• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed?

The article is developed with multiple contents.

• Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

No, the article is well-developed but could use additional information.