User:Aljgm6/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)Solar eclipse of May 29, 1919

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it is very vague, it gives little to know information on the Eclipse of May 29, 1919.

It gives where the Solar Eclipse could be seen, how long it lasted, and Einstein's prediction of the article. There is so much more history and science behind an eclipse occurring. It could go into depth about why Solar eclipse's don't happen for the amount of time it did. More in depth of why Einstein was studying the light bending. Each Eclipse that happens has a lot more back ground into why it happened.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead section: The article has a good leading statement because it tells you exactly what the article is on. There is no description of the articles major sections because there is only 2 sections in an article that could have easily 10+ sections. The lead is very concise and straight to the point.

Content: The content that it on the article is relevant, the article was created in 2017 and was last edited in 2023 so the material that is listed is up to date. There is lots of content missing such as; the History of Solar Eclipse, Why they happen, how often specific ones like this one happen, why they only last a few moments, how we use Einstein's predictions in the past to present day, etc..

Tone and balance: The article is neutral standing,  There are only facts in the article about how long it lasted, where it was seen and Einstein's predictions on the eclipse.

Sources and References: The sources are accurate and the links all work to all the other things that are listed in the Wikipedia page.

Organization and Writing Quality: For the information given in the article it is well organized and grammar and spelling is well done.

Images and Media: The images on the Wikipedia page are well captioned and described.

Talk page discussion: The talk page has a very strange conversation happening about "poor god" I feel like it has little to nothing to do with the topic of the Wikipedia page.

Overall: The article is rated low, it has very little information given about the subject with a lot of room to grow, the talk page is not good or helpful in anyway.