User:ECappBU/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Americanization

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is related to linguistic injustice and the soft power of the United States. It matters because it is a somewhat controversial and insidious topic. I am glad this point of view was mentioned in the lead section of the article. I thought the article was extremely thorough when looked at initially.

Evaluate the article

 * Lead Section
 * The lead sentence is fairly long, but the topic is difficult to be communicated concisely. Despite being quite a few lines, I think it does a good job of generally describing the article.
 * Each paragraph of the introduction relates to one of the article's major sections. This lines up neatly with all the sections and provides a very quick but helpful overview.
 * All content is relevant and there is no information that distracts from the meaning of the article.
 * All information in the lead is expanded upon in major sections, even the brands mentioned.
 * The lead is a little long and I feel it could be condensed. When providing examples, there are many listed. I think not all are necessary.
 * Content
 * All ofA the article's content is relevant, but I do think it could be a larger article. For a topic so large and nuanced, it is a fairly short article. There is however a see also section with multiple places for further reading, but I think the general topic could be expanded on.
 * The content is up to date with a mention of recent trends in the lead section. There is also a main section about recent trends.
 * (see point 1) Content is not missing, but I do feel there could be more information provided. The criticisms section is also very underdeveloped.
 * This topic could fit into a wikipedia equity gap. It is about americanization, which has negatively impacted immigrants and nations abroad. This sentiment is given a voice in the article. Author's from different cultures are represented.
 * Tone and Balance
 * The article is neutral in its tone. It spends time on both the negative perspective of americanization but also the positive perspective. It also touches on intent.
 * At one point the article states "The basic reason for US investments is no longer lower production costs, faster economic growth, or higher profits in Europe but the desire to maintain a competitive position based largely on American technological superiority." While I do agree with the claim this could be seen as biased, as there is also no source directly attached. It is a very opinionated statement. There are no examples provided either.
 * The negative view is mostly represented, but I do not think this is intentional. Broadly, most of the world is against americanization and it only makes sense for the article to echo that.
 * The criticisms section is underdeveloped and needs better sources. It also seems to haphazardly state large claims without providing ample context.
 * I do not think the article is persuasive. I think it uses many statistics and examples that could lead someone to believe a certain way, but I think its overall tone is neutral with the information provided.
 * Sources and References
 * Not all facts are backed up by reliable sources. Some are from biased news publications and others are old, dead links.
 * Most of the sources are reliable and reflect the available literature on the topic. I think there should be a focus on more international authors. Many are from German sources, which albeit was very closely tied to americanization, was not the only nation affected.
 * Most sources are relatively recent and from the last 15 or so years.
 * The sources do not entirely represent marginalized authors. Of the international authors, most are German. Of the few sources from authors of different nationalities, two are marked as bad sources.
 * For the points in the criticisms sections, there are surely better sources. The ones cited are accessed from the wayback machine but are relatively popular subjects. There are definitely academic papers on these subjects that could be cited in the place of now deleted content.
 * The sources I checked worked, except for the two marked as dead links.
 * Organization and Writing Quality
 * The article is surprisingly concise for a large topic. Some sentences do drag. It is easy to read, but some sections are walls of texts with only one citation. The source may have a large amount of information, but it makes it difficult to read. The visibility section is meandering.
 * I did not encounter any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The article is very well organized. Each major section is alluded to in the introduction and they all reflect major components of the topic. The criticisms section should either be fleshed or removed.
 * Images and Media
 * The images mostly show American brands in different nations and American inspired universities. This is helpful in illustrating the impact of americanization and how subtle it can be. Mcdonald's is showed three times, and I feel this may be too many.
 * All images are captioned concisely but well enough to explain the image in context.
 * All images are creative commons or public domain.
 * The business and brands section has three images and they are very cramped.
 * Talk Page Discussion
 * There is very little discussion going on with nothing posted in the past few years. Most of the conversation revolves around the article being incomplete or a possible merger with another americanization page.
 * It is part of 5 active wiki projects with 4 c-class ratings and 1 stub rating.
 * The article is very broad and only briefly mentions linguistics, although I feel that it is a very big part of americanization. The exportation of the American language deserves a lead section.
 * Overall Quality
 * The article's overall status is C class.
 * The article is fairly well-written with a strong lead section. There is a fairly large amount of information present too.
 * This article needs more sections as well as an improvement in the criticisms section. For such a large topic, it is a lacking article.
 * I do not think this article is done. It is quite underdeveloped and needs to be revised. It could also be more aesthetically pleasing. There are many facets of americanization not included, and its see also section feels lazy.