User:FloatingLarGibbon/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Bonanza

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

My grandfather loves the show, and I wanted to work on something he enjoys. If I can help in any way while I work on it, I will be glad. ￼

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 first couple of paragraphs that introduced the topic had a lot of good information, but were kind of lengthy.

Content

There was a lot of content throughout the article. However, I didn't find much information on the animals they used throughout the show. Other than that, there was a decent variety of information on the topic.

Tone

The article seems to favor the show a little bit here and there as if it were written by someone who watches and enjoys the show, but there was mostly neutral tones.

Sources

There were a lot of sources that filled the bottom of the page. I'm not sure how decent all of them are, but for the most part they seem good.

Organization

The paragraphs are broken up into decent sizes so that no one gets worn out reading. However, some of the paragraphs seem a tad cramped.

Images

There are a lot of images and charts used. I don't think all of them are necessary, but they are a nice touch. In a few spots the pictures sort of smoosh the words to the side in an awkward way.

Talk Page

There isn't a hole lot going on in the talk page, but there are people working away to make it better. I did see an instance where one of the responses seemed rude, but for the most part, people were decent.

Overall

The article was good, but could be improved. There were a few details that didn't seem right and were being discussed in the talk page. It could look a little nicer with the way the charts are organized. For the most part, there was a lot of good, straight forward information.