For my Wikipedia evaluation, I looked at the page on the Nahuatl languages of the Uto-Aztecan language family. The article began with a concise summary of what the Nahuatl languages were, and then branched off into the history and current status of the language, as well as the different branches and geographical locations that Nahuatl is or was spoken. I thought that the page was well organized. After a couple paragraphs of basic information, there were additional sections for the terminology of Nahuatl’s many varieties, a deeper look into its history, and multiple sections that broke apart learning the language.
I found the article to be unbiased and written with a very neutral tone. Then again the article did not cover a very controversial topic, so it was easier to stay unbiased. I also found that the content on the page was evenly distributed between each section. The vocabulary section could use a little more information, but for the most part every aspect of Nahuatl was thoroughly covered.
The links I checked brought me right to the correct pages. These pages were relevant to the Nahuatl language, and unbiased sources. One link brought me to the “General Law of Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples” which laid out the linguistic rights and regulations of indigenous people. There were two links of people’s names within the article that did not have a page set up yet.
To see if this article was up to date, I checked the modern history section, because I thought that would be the most prone to change. Most of the sources were from the early 2000’s. I didn’t see any sources from after 2010. I think this could possibly be an area that could use an update, since indigenous rights and support have changed a lot since the early 2000’s.
The talk page identified the Nahuatl section as one of the best articles featured on Wikipedia, which verified my positive overview of the page. I also found that the page was completed in 2008. The talk page had some edits, but I’m wondering if it could use a little more updating in some of the more current sections of the page.
Overall, this was a very good article that did a great job breaking down all aspect of the Nahuatl language in an unbiased way. The citing was accurate, and in the information was distributed fairly evenly throughout the sections. I think the current history and status of the language could use a little updating, but nothing on the page seemed to be inaccurate.

For this assignment, I decided to look at the Wikipedia page for Andean music. At the very beginning of the article, there is a notification from Wikipedia warning users that there are no citations anywhere in the article. Right away this damages the credibility of the article, as it means whatever information is present has no way of being verified. Looking at the Talk page for this article reveals that there has been little discourse on the construction of the article, only a handful of users debating the nature of “true” traditional Inca music. There are descriptions given of traditional Andean instruments that have links to many other Wikipedia pages that have a number of citations, which lends some amount of credibility to this section. The “Modern history” section gives broad details about the development of certain musical movements and musicians in the Andean region from the 1960s onward, but it feels very limited in scope and biased towards the promotion of a select few bands. I’m sure there is a rich history of music’s evolution throughout the Andean region, but this article is unable to explore any of it while simultaneously keeping the reader from discovering more outside of the realm of Wikipedia. The history of this article shows that there was, at some point, external links, but were removed over time. Much of the recent work has been provided by one user, adding more connections to other Wikipedia articles. Overall, this article could be interesting to help a reader discover more contemporary musicians from the Andean region, but lacks any sort of intellectual/academic credibility.

For our critical analysis of a wikipedia article, I chose to look at the wikipedia article for the quipus that we had discussed in class last week.

Upon first glance the article seems well written and contains plenty of sources in the reference section. The most eye catching part of the page, though, is the incredibly brief section on the etymology.  Personally, I believe this piece of information could have been placed in the introduction or in another section.  Some paragraphs on the “Purpose” are missing sources despite being an important part of the information given.  As for the rest of the page, in terms of sources, almost every paragraph contains at least one citation.  There still exists a few paragraph that needs citation involving the literary uses of the quipu as well as the common spelling issue an English.  This stems from the fact that there are many ways people spell quipu, but according to the discussion of the page, wikipedia uses the most common name, which a user noted was “quipu”. Overall, aside from the few problems I believe the article is well written and contains plenty of sources and citations.

I chose to evaluate the Wikipedia article on Inca society because this article is rated start-class on wiki quality scale. This article seemed to have many problems and inconsistencies. Firstly, this article lacked a balance-of-coverage of the many important aspects of Inca society. Although the article was broken down into clear segment headings, there was little information in some areas and an information overload in other areas. The author(s) had large paragraphs on some subjects and just a few sentences on others. The whole article only has four sources and some large sections had no references whatsoever. I tried to view one of the sources and it seems to be a faulty citation of nothing. The author(s) also uses vague and superfluous terminology to describe certain aspects of Incan society.

I chose to review the Wikipedia page for Arepas. Overall, I think that the article has many problems with both the citations and the overall amount of information. On the Talk page there are complaints on the significant lack of citations and there is a lot of discussion about the way in which the ways both Colombia and Venezuela should be discussed because of the long history of the arepa in the upper southern american culture. In addition, there seem to be many people who are putting their own experiences into the article. Overall, I wouldn’t trust a page with so few sources.