User:Gsloan18/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The Office (American Season 5)

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 The Office is my favorite show. I have seen it many times and therefore have a solid background on the series. This is a very popular show that has the ability to connect to a wide variety of different audiences, making it a significant part of popular culture during and after its airing. After my first time reading through the article, I found it to be adequately informational with no major gaps missing. I did see areas where sources

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.)

While the introductory sentence provides a clear statement of the article's topic, the rest of the lead section failed to provide a general outline of the sections of the article. The lead provides enough information to understand the topic without failing to be concise.

While all of the content is relevant, there are some notable errors discussed heavily in the talk page (incorrect numbering of episodes). The content is up to date, providing details on ratings and awards given after the season finished airing. However, modalities with which to view this season are not included. This seems important considering the recent move of the show from Netflix to Peacock. The season overview is also very sparse and should be expanded as the plot is one of the more important elements of a TV show and the amount it is discussed in this article does not reflect that.

The article maintains a neutral tone throughout, and there is no apparent bias. No attempts at persuasion in favor of a particular viewpoint is apparent, as ratings are given factually and the context behind ratings that differed from the norm is discussed as well.

In the 'Production' section, the discussion of changes to the writing staff (new additions, Lieberstein taking over for Daniels) is not cited with a source. The entire subsection within the Production section that discusses directors also does not include sources. The rest of the article does have sources listed and linked. However, of these sources, many are blogs with clearly expressed opinions on the season or random obscure websites. For example, source [3] is a blog (Knoxville.com blogs: Tele-buddy's Tinseltown Tales) however the link failed to work. Source [22], "NBC Tops 2009 TCA Awards Nominations : TVBizwire : TVWeek - Television Industry news, TV ratings, analysis, celebrity event photos," also had a faulty link. Others were outdated and very slow ( [11], [25], [29] - the Wayback Machine). The sources used to find ratings, however, appeared reliable, citing ABC and the New York Times for example.

The writing throughout the article is professional and easy to read. The prose is consistent and there are no major apparent spelling or grammatical errors.

The image of the cover of the box-set for the season as well as a screen grab from a scene from one of the episodes in the season are adequate to enhance the readers' understanding of the topic. The cover picture is visually appealing and helpful as it is immediately seen when one opens the article. Copyright regulations were upheld.

The talk page almost entirely focuses on the error in the numbering of episodes in the 'Episodes' section. Many of the suggested changes were not made, however, as disagreement between editors prevented a consensus.

The article is of interest to two WikiProjects and is rated C-class. The tone of the article as well as the lack of bias present strengths, while many of the opinionated, out-dated sources as well as inaccurate information pertaining to episode numbering presents weaknesses. Replacing some of the lacking sources with more up-to-date or neutral sources would improve the article, as would fixing the faulty link mentioned above ( [3] ) and adding citations for statements lacking them. Overall this article is developed enough to provide the reader with adequate information about the topic, however could use the implementation of the suggested tweaks mentioned above.