User:Ashleyw-171/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Thunderstruck (song)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because this is the type of music I grew listening to with my dad. We would be out in the garage working together and he would have his music on shuffle so this song came on fairly often. I believe it matter because others may have had a similar experience growing us so I think they should able to access information about the song and band incase they are curious. My first impression of this article was that there wasn't a whole lot of info about the band specifically and it seems as though there are few editors that didn't fully agree with information they were providing.

Evaluate the article
Lead section: The lead section does a good job at introducing the article as well as providing a snapshot of what to expect later on. It manages to provide much detail in a fairly concise paragraph.

Content: For the amount of content there is, it does all seem relevant. the article also seems up to date as it references a music video from 2021 saying "On 29 October 2021, the video hit one billion views on YouTube, the first AC/DC music video to do so." At the bottom of the page it also mentions that the article was last edited october 7th, 2023. I don't notice any specific content missing however I'm sure there is more info that could be added if more research was done. I don't notice any mentions of equity gaps or underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance: The article does seem neutral as there aren't any claims that are biased or attempt to persuade the reader. I do notice that the "Critical reception" section of the page is lacking information as it only has 2 sentences.

Sources: As far as I can tell, all sources and facts are reliable, up to date, and provide through information. After clicking on a few links they do seem to all work. As there are 58 sources listed in the article, I think it would be difficult to find "better" info on the song from a peer reviewed article.

Organization and Quality: The article does seem to be well written and free of spelling or grammatical errors. I do also notice that there are clearly labeled sections making it easy to try and find information you may be searching for.

Images and Media: There is only one image on the page and it is of the Thunderstruck single cover. The image is well captioned but the copyright status is unclear as the image doesn't specify who created the content. While the image is appealing, I do wish there was more than one in the whole article.

Talk Page: There is some discussion on the talk page between different editors about many different things. One saying that the article need more info, the copyright status of the image provided, as well as a list of issues with the article and some possible info that could be added. Most comments were made quite a few years ago so there are some that don't apply anymore.

Impressions: I thought the article seemed to be lacking in information and some of what was provided seemed irrelevant or not very important to the song. As I mentioned earlier I do with there were more images provided and as tis article was about a song written by a fairly well known band, it would have been nice to see some info about them included. It also seems there was some faulse info within the article but looking at the talk page, it (seemingly) has been resolved.