User:Alewi020/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Stan Lee

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Stan Lee passed away on my birthday: November 12. That is how I discovered his link. I picked his article out of all the rest because I love the work he has done. His comic books and movies are amazing and entertaining. Plus, he touched people's hearts from all over, and that is an amazing feat to me. Stan Lee deserves to live on (as he will, I'm sure). However, just in case people do not know or remember him, please click on that link and see who Stan Lee is yourself! My preliminary impression is that this article is full of Stan Lee facts!

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: It has a solid lead section. The introductory sentence allows the reader to know who Stan Lee is roughly. The rest of the paragraph mentions key projects of his (what he is most known for): Marvel and his multibillion dollar business from that. Then, the rest of the lead section goes into more detail about Stan Lee’s work. It mentions people he worked with, as well as the movies he helped create. Additionally, the lead includes a brief description of the article’s main sections, does not include information that isn’t present in the article and is detailed and concise. However, it may be too detailed for the beginning.

Content: The article is relevant to the topic of Stan Lee, and it is up to date. The article was even edited January 2021, as well. None of the content is not missing from the article, and the Wikipedia equity gap is not addressed. However, some of the content is a bit wonky or unneeded in my opinion.

Tone and Balance: The article is written from a neutral point of view, and the claims and viewpoints are equally shown throughout the article. There seems to be no persuasion in the article either. However, minority or fringe viewpoints are rarely discussed.

Sources/References: The sources are thoroughly researched, more or less current in relation to his passing, are written by various different authors and the links work. Additionally, the facts in the article are all backed up by the sources provided. I do not think there are any other sources that could provide better information because the article already has a ton of references.

Organization and Writing Quality: The writing is relatively clear, well-written and professional. The article contains few grammatical errors. However, the article seems to be a bit disorganized. The subcategories seem to be okay, but the information within each category seems misplaced.

Images and Media: The article includes images that enhance the memory of readers, but the article’s images do not increase the understanding of the topic much, only a select few do. A few of the images are well-captioned, though. However, a few just say Stan Lee and the year the photo was taken. Additionally, the images do/ do not adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations, and the images are laid out in a relatively visually appealing way.

Talk Page Discussion: The Talk page talks about the disorganization of the article, the strange quote about Stan Lee’s religion and a few word placement errors that could make the sentences flow better. I do not know how the article is rated or whether or not it was a part of WikiProjects. Also, we have not talked about Stan Lee in class, so I do not know how the topic would differ from Wikipedia and class discussions.

Overall Impressions: The overall article’s status is somewhat developed. While the article’s strengths are providing facts and giving some quality photos, its fall points are organization in the article and too much detail in some locations. Overall, the article is decent, but needs a few improvements to make it even better, such as getting rid of unnecessary facts, organizing the article better and proving better photo descriptions.