User:Abensss/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Melon heads

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because I thought the topic was interesting, as I love urban legends. I also thought it would be good to evaluate becase some of the edits in talk history seemed like a very good example of what NOT to do.

Evaluate the article
The introduction paragraph seems to do a good job of briefly describing what the article is about, but it does seem light on details. This may be because of the nature of urban legends, which causes for very few consistences across iterations. This is seemingly addressed in the format of the article, which breaks down it's major sections based in the geographical area of the legend (as the legend appears widely in 3 separate states). The intro is a very concise lead, however it may need further edits, as it seems to hold the majority of the information about the melon heads themselves, while the other sections just describe backstories. More information about the creatures needs to be integrated throughout the article.

The content of the sections seems to mainly be focused on the backstories of the creatures in their respective regions, but there is little in ways of modern reports or sightings. The most recent date I see mentioned at all is the 2011 movie that was based on the legend. Most of the references used seem to be from local news papers or articles that include phrases like "best kept secrets". The credibility of these sources could easily be called into question, as they seem to be promoting belief for possible tourism or media attention. Other sources come from online sites like blog spot, and can similarly click-baity titles like "Top 5 Fake Creatures Some People Think Are Real".

Media on the page itself seems to be greatly lacking, as the photo images are uncited images that seem to be from google street view of where these creatures are said to roam. No images of sketches or photos of the creatures can be found.

The most shocking part of the article is the talk page. With sections such as "Nonsense" and "Whaaa...?", it seems the history of this page is littered with internet trolls and and angry editors. One user even told another to "come off it" and called a previous edit "rubbish". The talk page is also littered with personal anecdotes from locals, claiming to know the the origins of the story, but not having sources beyond "that's what my dad said".

In all, this article seems to have faced quite a bit of trouble since it's creation, and is still having difficulty meeting the standards that Wikipedia has set down for their site.