User:Deedeeedits/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Talk:71st Tony Awards)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(I chose this article to evaluate because I have a strong love for theater. I have been doing theater since I was little and wanted to research a topic that I would be very interested in. Additionally, I feel that having some prior knowledge of a subject will make editing this article easier )

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The lead section was succinct and straight to the point. It was loaded full of information that you could see at the glance of an eye but allowed for a more thorough overview when looked at more clearly. My one critique is that the information does not flow together. The sentences feel choppy and that makes it more difficult to read and fully understand the information you are reading. The introduction jumped from awards to nominations, to controversy too quickly and did not allow for transition.

Content:

The content consists of who was nominated for each award, who won the award, and who presented the award. The content seems to be pretty comprehensive, all sources are linked and no awards were missed. The only thing that seems to be missing is the mention of the controversy mentioned in the lead section. The lead section mentioned the controversy of the host of the Tony awards that year because of sexual misconduct accusations. There was no information on this page about that, although there was a link to an article that explained the situation further, I feel that there should be a section on how this controversy impacted the awards show.

Tone and Balance:

The tone of this article is informative and impersonal. There is no indication that the author has an agenda they want to push forward or has any opinion of the Tony awards themselves or the nominations. There is no mention of marginalized communities and therefore no room to be opinionated on that subject.

Sources and References:

All parts of the article that need sourcing have sources. Most links are up to date but there are a few links that need to be updated.

Organization and Writing Quality:

Organization of this article is very good. The format is clearly spaced out and you can tell the difference between the sections. Headers, white space, and chunking are used to visually differentiate the sections of the article. There is little to no writing in this article, there are only nominations and winners

Images and Media:

The images in this article are utilized very well. Every time a celebrity or public figure is mentioned there is a hyperlink to an article about them and if you hover over the link there is a little photo of them that pops up. I believe that this is very helpful as it is unlikely someone know all the names seen in this article.

Talk Page Discussion:

There was likely not very many conversations about this topic happening behind the scenes, There is almost no nuance in the documenting of an award show. I highly doubt much effort went into how to portray the information in this article. The arclice is rated a C on the Wiki scale.

Overall Impressions:My overall impression was that this was a relatively good article but it provided little to no text and only factual information. If someone wanted to learn about this specific instalment of the Tony awards further than the nominations, this would not be the place to look