User:Familyfare/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Charlie Brown

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article given my personal like for the comic, along with my interest to learn more about the comic's origin and background.

This article matters, as it can serve as a gateway for future readers to the comic. By learning of how Charlie Brown came to be, his evolution, peak times, and eventual downfall, peoples interest's can be piqued, possibly leading to them become a future reader.

My preliminary impression of the article was that it was a good, chronological, summary of the development of the character. Charlie Brown's history was explained alongside the character's creator's history and personal thoughts, which I found informative for a greater understanding of the comic.

Evaluate the article
Containing a concise and well-written introductory sentence, the lead contains all of the necessary major elements: section descriptions, conciseness, and relevant information.

The content is both relevant, belongs, and seemingly up to date. Following the author's death, not many sources on him were published. Rather the following sources focused on Charlie Brown's impact. Regarding tone and balance, the entirety of the article is neutral, and presents the comic as it as, oftentimes using the strips to explain it's message.

All facts are relevant, current, and (other than links to books one must purchase to read) work. However, I feel as if their could be a wider spectrum of authors as sources.

The article is well written, and well organized. I especially like the chronological timeline in which the comic's story progression and outside impact was told.

There is much going on in the Talk page. There were many complaints regarding a mass of primary sources that have now been deleted. There is some argument over some details (such as those who hold right to Peanut's animation, Charlie Brown's aging). With this said, the article seems to be well represented. This topic doesn't differ much from the way we talked about it in class, given the encyclopedic nature of the articles. At the end of the day, the facts are prioritized and personal statements are not included.

With all the recent edits made, the article seems strong. The strengths lie in the history and personal summation of the character. The improvements that can be made can be made within the comic's story progression. While a basic overview is given, along with some specific examples with the comic strip sourced, the article lacks structure in terms of explaining what is happening within the comic. Alongside this, the explanations (within the decades in chronological order) can possibly be expanded upon, specifically the 1980's and 1990's.

As a causal fan/reader of the comic, I find this article well-developed. However, as seen in the Talk page, those that have a deeper love for the comic can certainly add deeper information to develop paragraphs on certain topics (such as the author and character) without interfering with other articles on that subject itself.