User:Alohr77/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Vladimir Golenishchev

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because of my interest in Egyptology. From my initial research, Vladimir made some important discoveries of Egyptian artifacts and the information regarding this man on the Wikipedia is minimal. This article also caught my interest because he published documents and looking into these documents could provide more insight into his life. Lastly, this article appeared to be seemingly bare of Vladimir's life and history of his discoveries, which leaves lots of room for improvement.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article provides a short and precise sentence to describe the man's occupation but nothing more. The lead section provides enough for a person to know what time period and his job but the entire paragraph has extremely limited information. The lead section also fails to introduce what information will be presented later in the article.

The article's content appears to be up to date and relevant to the article's topic. The information that is present seems to be of importance; however, from initial observation, more information of his life, legacy, motive, and discoveries could elevate the article. The topic content addresses an individual who seemingly had a significant impact with the discovery of many ancient relics, but poorly represented him in respect to his life and actions beyond his career.

The tone of the article appears to be neutral and without any underlying bias. Almost all of the information present merely describes his actions he took within his career. There does not seem to be any apparent persuasion.

The information within the article seems to be backed by minimal sources. The entire article had three references and only one of them was accessible. Therefore the sources seem to not be current. There should be more sources and updated/current information within the article.

The minimal writing that is present is clear and concise. It is also easy to understand and follow. The organization could use some work by added more sections and referencing them in the introduction.

The article has a single image that is overall useful and portrays the man nicely.

The talk page is overall minimal; however there are two recent questions posted implying that others see that this article could use some help as well.

The overall status of the article is poor. The article needs more information, neater organization, and reliable sources. The only current strength is that the current information is clear and neutral. Overall the article is poorly developed and could use lots of help to improve the information and representation of this individual.