User:Flavorless Fideos/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Capital punishment

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because I found this article's topic very interesting due to the methods and history. Additionally, this topic is already fairly well written, but I thought that this article could further be improved with additions of extra context in some sections and also some more polishing.

Evaluate the article
The Lead section of the article has no real flaws. The lead is decently longer than an average lead, but provides basic background on the topic and also discusses briefly about the content in the article.

Content is also very well developed in all subsections, however I would like to see a bit more context regarding some events. For example, in the section about non-painful executions, the article mentions the french Guillotine, but neglects to further explain the reason why the french deemed it to be humane, or the overall change to that new method. In general, this can be applied to most of the section.

Tone is great. It is factual and shows no real bias unless it is quoted from a reputable source or relevant context.

Majority of the article has good sources from scholarly articles, neutral news sites (for event coverage), and reputable statistics. However there are some citations still needed. For example, under Murder, there needs a citation for an aggravating factor needed for the use of capital punishment. Links also work.

The article is well written. There are no typos, it is easy to read, and the sections make sense.

The media present in the article is relevant and have good captions. Only gripe is that there should be a few more as the images are kinda scarce.

From the talks "Capital punishment was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time." The article is rated as a C class article which means that it is a good article and has relevance, but has major problems in content and needs a cleanup.

The article is overall good in terms of content. But definitely needs a shape up when it comes to context in some sections and also the lack of pictures and citations for some lines.