User:Gmarinello19/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
WikiProject United States History

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article is a WikiProject about United States History, whereas for my class I am doing a project based on the life of someone who had an impact on history within the United States.

Evaluate the article
The article does have a good lead section. The lead section provides a great introduction for what the Wikipedia article is about and briefly describes what each subpage is about. Everything about the lead is concise and there is no information within it that is not shown in the article. Overall, there is not much content within the article. Since the article is specifically about a group of people who are improving Wikipedia articles based on United States history, there is mostly links and small sentences about what was done. The article is absolutely neutral. It only states facts regarding what edits members of the group have done to other pages. Because of this, these facts stated can be cross-referenced and understood as true. There seems to be no reason for viewpoints to be overrepresented or underrepresented so there is no bias within the article. Each source for the article is shown clearly and concise. On the bottom of the page it shows all of the related WikiProjects regarding this article. All sources shown are thorough, with many different editors from this WikiProject making contributions are shown while sifting through each one. The article is well-written and concise, but as stated before there is not much information within the article to begin with. Mostly a few sentences with many links for who has changed what. However, although there is not much information, article is very well-organized with each piece of content being shown clearly. The article shows a picture of the U.S. Constitution which is appropriate for the page. Although true, there are not many other pieces of media that would enhance this page overall. The talk page mostly consists of individuals from the group adding or taking people off from the page. Not much conversation within the talk page. The article's overall status is a C. The strengths of the article include its organization, sources and links shown throughout the page, but there is not much that could be improved in general. This is because the information relies on the members of the group to make many more edits in order for more information to be added. Overall, the article is complete, but with any more edits made by the group project there will need to be more information added to the article.