User:Foodways Enthusiast/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Glass Flowers

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the article Glass flowers because I wanted to evaluate an article about archives, and I found the title to be unusual. The Glass Flowers collection is notable because of the size and unusual detail featured in the collection. Additionally, the collection remains a popular tourist attraction.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section begins with a concise explanation of the subject, the Glass Flower collection at Harvard University. The rest of the lead section outlines the remaining article. It does not contain any information that is not present in the rest of the article.

Content

The article does not appear to discuss any issues related to equity, under-represented populations, or controversial issues. However, the most recent source material used for the article is from 2016, which is a press piece from the Harvard Gazette. Additionally two pieces of information in 'The Models' section have been flagged for requiring more information. First, a description of the model making process notes that the creators used an unspecified material. This has been tagged with a request for "further explanation". An unsubstantiated quote has also been included, towards the bottom of the same section. This has been tagged with a note saying "citation needed". Overall, the content is relevant to the subject matter, the Glass Flowers collection at Harvard.

Tone and Balance

The article presents a positive view of the collection. In both the lead and content sections, the article notes the popularity of the collection and the acclaim elicited by its highly detailed nature. While it may be that there are no other viewpoints fringe or otherwise, the tone of the article is overall positive.

Sources and References

The article has eighteen references and uses a variety of sources. However, the Glass Flowers collection resides at Harvard University and at least five of the sources are from Harvard University publications. These are not neutral sources. Additionally, there does not seem to be mention of this in the content of the article. Other sources include the New York Times, Cabinet Magazine, and the Journal of the American Institute for Conservation. As previously noted, the most recent source is from 2016. I tested a number of the links and they all worked.

The Talk Page

The discourse on this page holds a surprising depth of vehemence and zeal. Over the course of 2016-17 there were heated debates about the overall positive tone of the article, and through that Wikipedia's editing etiquette. While none of the editors appear to fully approve of the article's current state, it is the result of a compromise on the article's tone, in 2017.