User:Can7f5/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Metallurgy in pre-Columbian America - Wikipedia
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because I it lacks a lot of information when it comes to archaeometallurgy My first impression was that it was interesting, but there are holes in the information.
Evaluate the article
[edit](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.)
This article is a little broad and does not dive very deep into some of the specific topics. There are also multiple missing citations which need to be filled. Copper in the Mississippian culture could use a picture to give further context to the article section. The article also contradicts itself, because at the start it explains that there were no early signs of metallurgy in Modern day united states, but then talks about Mississippian culture and how they used copper. The last edit of this article was in 2018, and there have likely been discoveries in the last 5 years about this subject.