User:Galatine2546/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Giovanni Boccaccio

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose a figure we had discussed in class but who was not part of the Papal election.

Evaluate the article
Overall, the information in the article all pertains to the subject, and none of it is particularly distracting. The introductory sentence of the lead section is clear and concise, though there is some vague language ("some scholars...") in the third sentence. The lead does a good job of setting up what will be discussed elsewhere in the article, but there is mention in a final paragraph of modern scholarship on Boccaccio that is then not discussed. There is also a quote, which seems unnecessary and possibly against the Wikipedia guidelines, though it is certainly public domain. As far as my knowledge of the subject extends, there is nothing glaringly absent. The article is largely neutral, though it does portray Boccaccio in a flattering light, because it does not take an active stance on his impact in either direction. If anything, views of his work are underrepresented in the article on the whole. There is definitely room for more citations, though I'm not sure to what degree they are necessary. There are a few places I might've put a citation, but that doesn't necessarily mean the author should have and failed to. There are, however, only five sources total for the article, when perhaps more could be used. Additionally, the most recent source is already 14 years old, though I am unaware if there is any revelatory new information about the subject in that time. The sections might benefit from subsections, but overall the organization of the article is clear and not at all confusing. I might have chosen to organize by topic as well as chronology, instead of just chronology, but that would be a matter of personal preference. There is not a lot of recent discussion on the talk page, it seems the article has not been updated in six years, and no new discussions in nine. The article receives only a C rating, and there are suggestions as to how to fix this that seem to not have been implemented despite their being fourteen years old. The content of the article is not so much in question as the structure, some of which I have mentioned and others seem to be specific minutiae of Wikipedia's formatting.