User:Carollong112/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mother's Mercy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am evaluating this article because it was within the suggested articles for this exercise. Since I do not watch, nor am I interested in the game of thrones, it should work for what I need.

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.)

The first paragraph has information telling you what this particular article is about. It also has information on who created the show, and what channels you can watch it on. Many links in the first paragraph to information about the show.

This article does get straight to the point. It tells you exactly what the article is about, and also offers some information on ratings, and amount of viewers. I believe that it includes points that are covered later in the article. The lead is concise.

The article itself is a bit lengthy. But it does cover every part that it was said to cover. It is very descriptive. I think that it is unbiased. This article describes the events in the episode in great detail, and how the directors and editing team got the shots they wanted, without trying to sway opinions on it.

The article has many, many links and references to actors, writings, and the team that created to show. Their links and references are up to date as far as I can tell, and they are working properly. They even included links to places that the show was set in, and filmed at.

I think that the article is straight forward, and clear. They have a list of places, and events taking place at these locations. Everything is well written and understandable. Visually appealing as well.

The talk page was full of discussion. They had spoilers if anyone is concerned about that, but it was interesting to see people talking about what is in the episode. It was also interesting to see them talking about what is or has happened, and what the writers implied of left for the readers, and watchers to contemplate for themselves.

I would say that the article is well researched, and had very many useful links and bits of information. It was well organised and easy to understand. I think that it was a little bit lengthy, but it would have to be to get all of the points covered and linked or cited. I am not sure what could be improved, besides maybe shortening it a bit. However, I don't know where you would want to shorten it, seeing as each bit of info had context and was helpful in understanding the article. Overall I think it was well done, and informative.