User:Drew-Michael Designs/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
History of anime

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I think anime as an art form is an interesting, cultural practice that can be somewhat distorted. I think further explaining and understanding the history of anime will help shed light on the influence it has within today's popular culture.

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.)

Lead Section
The Lead section is somewhat confusing, mainly because there is a seemingly unorganized culmination of information. While the lead does discuss a brief history of anime, which seems accurate in terms of the content of the article, it also includes a list of individuals and periods which are not specifically listed in the contents of the wiki article. Instead, these listed individuals and techniques seem to be split up between different listed eras. this poses a slight problem in terms of organization as viewers cannot easily navigate to these specific individuals and techniques. Overall a strong lead, but mainly disorganized and somewhat confusing.

Content
The content of the article is very strong. It is very detail oriented and extremely relevant to the topic. Additionally, while there is some discussion about older practices and techniques there is a large focus on contemporary and modern approaches, which helps bring about a sense of relevancy to the article. Additionally, it seems the article attempts to address an equity gap, but it is inconclusive whether one exists, or the article is referring to a specific cultural group.

Tone and Balance
Overall the article seems neutral in tone, and does not specifically express inherent or obvious bias. The general consensus is that the article strictly provides information regarding the history and origins of anime. There is no information or perspectives presented other than those that are clearly stated to belong to individuals the article is addressing.

Sources and References
It looks as if most of the sources are current, and reliable allowing for access across the board. However, I did find one link to a book titled Floating worlds : a short history of Japanese animation that was not viewable. It seems this may be one of a few links that do not allow access to the original source material.

Organization and Writing Quality
Overall the article is well written, and extremely well rounded. The diction of the article overall is very professional, and informative. Additionally, the article is organized extremely efficiently, listing the origins and eras in chronological order, rather than by importance or impact.

Images and Media
The images included within the article seem relevant and helpful in regards to the content. As for whether they adhere to wikipedia's copyright regulations, it seems they comply. Each image is captioned briefly but informatively.

Talk Page Discussion
The Talk Page discussions are mainly suggestions on how to better the article as a whole. There are some minor suggestions, while others have suggested adding sources from various places. There is some dispute among the talk page regarding information and claims made within the article, but these seems to stem more from an opposing perspective held by the editor rather than the factual state of the information provided. Additionally, this article is related to three Wiki projects: Wikiproject Anime and Manga, Wikiproject Film / Japanese, and Wikiproject Animation / Asian.

Overall Impressions
The article itself is not bad. It is extremely informative, and organized. However, there is a lot of information to process and some of the source links do not provide access. That being said, the article could use minor improvements on the organization of the lead, and having readily accessible tabs for the information provided within the lead. Additionally I believe the article to be well developed, but needs some more rounding out within the minor details in regards to accessible source links, and a more clear and concise lead section.