User:Artemi.M/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
United States Army Military Government in Korea

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.)

Evaluate the article
Lead section. Content-wise I think that the lead section is solid yet it needs some adjustments to satisfy the Wikipedia standards. It's informative and clear, the tone is appropriate and it provides the concentrate of information about the subject of the page. The last paragraph in the lead section is poorly cited and the information given in this part isn't supported later on the page. The citation links are broken and the bibliography most definitely requires a proper revision as some of the articles are impossible to find (if they exist at all).

Content. Overall the content of this page is informative and introduces the audience to the specifics of the subject. The sidebar is very well structured and contains not only useful dates from the timeline that help readers to orient themselves in history but also has relevant links to other pages that would enrich ones understanding of the time and matter of the subject. However, there is not a lot of background information about the political status of Korea prior to the end of WWII. The article throws a reader straight into the context of postwar events and it is hard to see the trajectory of such events without a brief outline of the background.

Tone and Balance. The tone of the entire page is consistent and appropriate. With my limited experience in Wikipedia editing, I would suggest that it's acceptable. On the other hand, the balance of the article is not at its equilibrium state. The page is focused too much on the particular time frame and doesn't give enough of an outlook on the political, social and economic repercussions and outcomes of the United States Army Military Government in Korea. It also touches on the socio-economic paradigms very briefly. Sections "Education" and "Economics" could be more balanced to show equally significant political decisions that were made at the time of the United States Army Military Government in Korea and their implications.

Sources and References. Arguably the most problematic section. Sources and references require a proper revision and installation of the working links. The citation style is also inconsistent and needs to be edited. Many links provided don't work and some of the articles are not found neither on JSTOR, nor at the university library.

Organization and Writing Quality. Overall this article is well organised and written in a comprehensive manner. Sections are broken down accordingly, although there are some parts that could be broken down to subsections to make it easier to follow (i.e. section "Key Events"). The writing quality is satisfactory; there are some stylistic inconsistencies in the last two sections, however, they are easy to fix and generally, the text is easy to read.

Images and Media. In my view, the best section of the page. Media files are accessible, relevant and perfectly contribute their content to the point of the article. All media files are also well-captioned and presented in a clear and cohesive manner.

Talk Page Discussion. As mentioned above, citations aren't the strongest side of this article so many people talk about this issue and working on improvements. Some people also suggest more information to add to this page and discuss how and why it's relevant. Overall Talk Page activity is quite low.

Overall Status. Overall this page has a solid fundament, however, there are many essential elements that require rigorous revision and improvement. I don't think that this page at this very time satisfies Wikipedia standards, although it is close to being competent. The sidebar is well structured and hyperlinks, as well as the suggested pages, are well placed. The weakest elements, perhaps, are the citations, writing conventions and content bias. I think that the article is underdeveloped.