User:Agstphn/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Chicago

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am from Chicago, so I would consider myself to be rather knowledgeable on the topic. It matters to me that this information is correct because it is a big part of me, and I want people to see how truly wonderful it is. My preliminary impression is that the article contains a lot of really good information. There are several different subtopics within the article, so it appears to be an all-encompassing read about the city.

Evaluate the article
The lead section looks very strong. There is all sorts of general information within it, so it provides a good overview of the topic. However, it is not necessarily as concise as many other articles that I have come across on Wikipedia. Thus, it was a bit overly detailed. As far as content goes, this is a very broad topic, so there is a lot to be said about it. The editor(s) did a nice job of covering the majority of it. The only issue that I saw was that some of the information was listed as present, but it was rather outdated; for example, the history section states that its final paragraph is 1980-present, but it only provides information up until 2011. However, the demographics section provided information up until 2021, which is much more recent. Due to these discrepancies, I feel that the article does show some inconsistency. The article maintains a very neutral viewpoint throughout its entirety; it presents only the facts. When describing the food and the music, it uses in depth descriptions in a factual way, so that the reader is intrigued, but not persuaded of anything. There are hundreds of sources listed within, and in their own section of, the article. These sources provide a wide variety of people and information types (newspapers, museums, documentaries). Thus, the article is well-rounded and inclusive to all sorts of fact origins. The article is very well organized and has several subsections that end up fully painting a picture of the city of Chicago. These subsections are definitely a bit wordy and could use some brevity, but with such a broad topic, it is understandable that there will be a lot of information to get down. There are many images within each section of the article that provide a visual additive to what is being talked about. All of the images I came across were appropriate per the section they resided in. The talk page has been active recently discussing the images that were previously in the article; someone stated that they felt the images were not representative of the city's beauty. Someone else then went in and added more photos, along with changing the ones that were not a good fit for the subtopic they were in. This was for the benefit of all readers because it allows a more accurate view of the city they are reading about. This article did a very nice job of tackling such a wide-spanning topic. It covered a LOT of information, and for the amount of information covered, was well-organized. Future edits could focus on shortening the lead, so that it is more concise. I feel that there also could be several more subsections within each subtopic to make the article an easier read in general. The article is, in my opinion, well-developed.