User:Cesco007/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
You're the Worst

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I had already finished evaluating when I reread the instructions and realized I was supposed to pick an article related to the course, so oops, apologies. I chose this article as a fan of the show, I think it matters because TV is an important art form. My preliminary impression was that there were issues in the plot section as well as a lack of production and industry information.

Evaluate the article
Lead


 * The introductory sentence is straight to the point and clearly describes the topic of the specific single camera comedy/drama TV show. It lets the reader know the genre and general style of the show instead of just the title. The overall lead is concise and entails the sections. The reader can learn the channel, creator, characters, some themes, and basic shooting information.

Content


 * Content is relevant and generally up-to-date, the page could benefit from a section on news and notabilities from after the show finished airing. No content is necessarily missing but there is weird detail in the plot section that does not belong. While the plot information is technically correct, it focuses a large amount on the specificities of the pilot instead of the series as a whole. The article also mentions how the first seasons aired on FX, while the others aired on the sister-network FXX, but there is no information on what prompted that switch.

Tone & Balance


 * Articles about TV shows and movies seem to be less susceptible to biases, there is a very neutral point of view. There is no position to be made or any opinions present.

Sources & References


 * Due to the nature of the article's topic, academic and peer-reviewed papers are difficult to come across. The most trustworthy information comes from official FX channels and interviews with affiliated cast members and writers. Many sources are from entertainment publications, but they are up to date and written by a diverse spectrum of authors.

Organization & Writing Quality


 * No technical organizational issues or grammatical problems are present. More sections could be beneficial but the present ones are well-organized. It is well written with the exception of previously mentioned awkward plot summary.

Images & Media


 * There is only one image, but it is fair use and accurately captioned. More pictures would elevate the article.

Overall


 * Despite belonging to multiple WikiProjects, it's ranked of low importance as well as C-class. It needs some editing and small additions, but it is adequately developed.