User:Graybeboy/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
La razón de mi vida

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is the article I'll be editing for my project. It matters because it's an autobiography of an important figure in Argentine politics and thus important to the country's history. My first impression was that the article was barebones, with many under-sourced (or entirely unsourced) assertions.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is not very good. The opening sentence clearly describes what the article is about (the autobiography of Argentine public figure Eva Peron). It doesn't include the article's major sections, but to be fair, in its current iteration, there's only three sections, the lead, "Criticism", and "References". It does include a couple claims not present in the article (and they're unsourced). However, the lead is rather concise, but this could simply be because of the lack on information in the article.

The content is relevant and seems to be up to date, however, a lot of things are missing, such as context, greater detail, or references for some claims. Technically this article relates to underrepresented groups because women have always been underrepresented and underappreciated in history, and Latin American history isn't commonly taught in English-speaking schools.

The article is arguably neutral, though I suspect this is likely more from simply a lack of substance in the article than an actual effort to make it such. For example, it's mentioned that there is a controversy around whether Eva Peron actually wrote the book. That's it, two skinny sentences, but the lack of representation for this view seems to be because of the aforementioned lack of substance to this article rather than an effort to give the view proper weight.

Almost no facts are backed by references, reliable or not. The source, singular, does not appear to be thorough at all.

The organization and writing quality are both solid.

There are a couple images that do add some understanding to the topic and are laid out appealingly.

There is nothing on the talk page except the announcement that I've picked it for my project, and that the article is part of the Books and Argentina WikiProjects, and now our class WikiProject.

The article's status is that of a stub article, which is accurate. The strength (if you can call having no meat on its bones strength) is how concise it is. The article can be improved by simply citing its claims and elaborating and contextualizing a few of those claims. This article is highly underdeveloped.