User:Ccoh063/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Charles W. Chesnutt

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It is related to my course and seems detailed enough to be worth evaluating (not a stub).

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * Yes. The introductory sentence is a clear and detailed explanation establishing who Chesnutt is.
 * Not really. It does not clearly identify the major sections.
 * No, all of the information in the lead is discussed in the article.
 * It seems concise enough, though some parts are unnecessary and could probably be trimmed out (i.e., the mention of the stamp).

Content


 * All of the information of the article appears to be relevant to the topic.
 * Yes, it is up-to-date.
 * It seems to be fairly complete and comprehensive as far as I can tell, though it is possible that new information could be added.
 * Chesnutt spoke about racial and social identity, so he is related to the topic of minorities, and he himself is 1/8 African American.

Tone and Balance


 * The article (particularly the "Writing" section) comes across as written by someone who has a positive opinion of Chesnutt, but for the most part the phrasing is neutral.
 * The article includes statements of people praising Chesnutt's work, and expresses some of Chesnutt's own political views. However, these are always presented as "this person said XYZ" or "Chesnutt believed XYZ", and so presents these things in a more objective manner, rather than directly endorse those views.
 * The article mentions criticisms of Chesnutt's work, but does not discuss them in as much detail as the praise he received. This could probably be expanded upon for a more "balanced" description of the views that contemporary people had on his work.
 * Nothing is explicitly identified as such in the article.
 * I don't think it is particularly attempting to convince anyone of anything.

Sources and References


 * Yes, everything is thoroughly sourced.
 * They all seem to pertain to the topic and reflect most of what's available.
 * Some sources are more recent than others, but nothing seems outdated in any way that is problematic.
 * Yes, they seem to come from a variety of places and include authors of historically marginalized demographics.
 * Many of the provided sources seem to come from academic places.
 * Yes, the links work. Those that don't work have options provided to access it through archive.org.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * Yes, it is well-written.
 * Not that I noticed.
 * Yes, it is broken down into distinct sections.

Images and Media


 * Yes, it includes several images that are relevant to understanding the topic.
 * Yes, all of the captions are clear and informative.
 * Yes.
 * They are sufficiently visually appealing.

Talk Page Discussion


 * Most of the things on the talk page are people correcting inaccuracies or mentioning changes that they made. Outside of that, one mentions a previous lack of sources in one section, another identifies the use of a non-free image, and another corrects the use of outdated and offensive language.
 * It is listed as "of interest" to four WikiProjects. Each WikiProject rates it differently, but generally it seems to be considered C-class/Start-class.

Overall Impression


 * The page is relatively complete and detailed.
 * It provides a good amount of information, is well-sourced, and is written in a clear manner without any obvious errors.
 * Parts of it could potentially be expanded I suppose.
 * It is complete and well-developed.