User:Mbug333/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]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I am currently in the class Archaeology of Africa where I am learning about the African cultures and the connection to the history of humans and their behavioral patterns. I find it very interesting, especially when connecting archaeological sites to human evolution, which is why I chose this article to observe how the Kemondo Iron Age Sites contribute to our knowledge of the human past. Briefly reading the information in this article, I found the sites to be very interesting in types of technology they produce.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The Kemondo Iron Age Sites are archaeological sites active around the Iron Age period in Kemondo ward,Tanzania. The site was excavated using radiocarbon dating by archaeologists in the late 1900s, in hopes of furthering human understanding of the sites' iron smelting and ritual processes.
The article's content is concise and informative, accurately describing the ritualistic and technological lifestyle of the people living in the Kemondo Iron Age Sites from as early as 300 BC to 700 AD. It was updated recently in the past year and contains a reasonable amount of verified and scholarly sources based on the size of the article. The article is neutral in tone, and it is well organized into the two topics that the article hoped to address; however, it goes much further into detail the iron technological process more than the effect of ritual medicine. Furthermore, the article is limited on images of the sites as well as findings outside of these topics at these sites, consisting of only of an expansion to other sites in Tanzania. Therefore, I would claim that this article is under-researched and needs more data.
Overall, I believe this article is informative and helpful to the reader; however, it should be expanded upon to include more available data of the Kemondo Iron Age Sites, which includes but is not limited to more images, sources, and written information of other analyses recorded at the sites.