User:Ashleyboult12/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
David Suzuki

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article because it has lots of info and is a bibliography that is well done. I wanted to evaluate this one because I have never done something like this and wanted to experience editing an article that is already pretty well complete.

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: You can tell the article is a bibliography as it clearly identifies who the article is about, gives a good overview of what topic the article will elaborate on like his early life and his career. The lead is very concise and not overly detailed and doesn't include any information that is not elaborated on further in the article.

Content: Article is very relevant to topic as it is a bibliography on David Suzuki. The content of this article seems to be relevant to his past but I noticed that there was not to much info relevant to his current life and what he is doing now. There doesn't seem to be any gaps that I see.

Tone and balance: I feel like the article is written well and doesn't seem to persuade in any way to believe one thing or another. viewpoints are all clear and concise.

Source and references: I do find that there are some areas where citations are missing at the end of paragraphs. All of the sources that are used seem to be reliable sources. There are many sources that were used for this article as there is lots of information on David Suzuki. the information seems to be all over the place current and older. This also includes many different articles used as sources they were not all from the same one. This makes this article a strong one. I checked a few of the links provided and they seemed to work just fine.

Organization and writing quality: Article is easy to read. Seems to have no spelling errors or grammatical errors. The sections are clean concise and organized there isn't too much info in each section causing for an easy read. Images and media: This article has a picture at the start of the article and some others throughout of who the article is about to give a visual of what they look like. Each image is captioned with a date and information. All images seem to be in an appealing way and go with the article. And all articles seem to be cited.

Talk page discussion: This article is rated B, there is some background discussions of modifications people have made to the article.

Overall impressions: I personally don't think this article needs to be improved any.