User:Flutelover2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Early music revival - Wikipedia

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.)

I chose this article because I have some history of music already. I enjoy learning about music from the different eras and how it has transformed. This article matters because it explains how music came to be what it is today. My first impression of this article was that it focused more on century than the others mentioned in the article. It was noticeable by the length of each of the paragraphs.

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.)

The lead section had a definition of what the topic is but did not say what was going to be explained in the article. It seemed like it was two run on sentences. The lead was not very concise. The content of this article is relative to the topic and does bring it up to date. The article is pretty neutral. There are viewpoints that are underrepresented. The lead states where it starts then making it more authentic today. The content seems to mostly focus on the music revival from the 20th century with barely any information from the century it started in. The links work and the facts are backed up. The writing isn't very clear. In each paragraph, the information seems to jump around. Each paragraph is a different century and some of the information starts with a late year then as you continue, it jumps to a year that's early. For example, it might go from the year1960 at the start of the paragraph then at the end of the paragraph it goes to the year 1918. It is broken into subsections that goes over each century from the early 1900s to the current century. There are no images on this article. There isn't much going on in the Talk page discussion, just over a few errors, like how the title is not capitalized correctly. This article is an academic discipline. Overall, I think the article has good information and it is set up in an easy way to read. I think more information can be found for some of the other centuries that is talked about, specifically the one over the early 19th century as it was stated in the lead section. I would say this article is underdeveloped.