User:Hans van Lindenberg/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Hip hop production

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am really interested in music in general but especially in Hip Hop. One of the most important aspects of this genre is the production. Therefore I was interested to evaluate this article as it is in the C-class.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead is a concise sentence but maybe too concise because it does not really describe the topic that well. However, it does include a really brief description of the article’s major sections. Again, maybe it is too brief. It does not have information that is not present in the article which is good. It is concise but too concise in my opinion. Besides that, the second sentence of the lead section is too long, it sound have been divided into different sentences.

Content

I think it covers the almost all the most important topics which is really good. The history part was a great aspect of this article. However, what is missing is the way people put it all together. Because now producers use programs that adds all the elements together to make a complete song. When they are adding everything together, they are “mixing” it which is basically making it all sounds one song instead of just a bunch of different elements. This is arguably the most important thing about production music. Therefore, it is strange that that part is missing. What also would have been great is a bit more “new” information. So, for example different styles of production that is now popular or the best/most popular producers at the moment.

The authors of this article could have done a better job at dealing with the Wikipedia’s equity gap as it is important in this topic.

Tone and Balance

What is positive about this article is that is really neutral. You do not experience preferences of the authors. I do not think that there are viewpoints too overrepresented or too underrepresented. I do not feel like this article attempts to persuade the reader in favor of one position.

Sources and References

I think that there should be more sources and references. That would make the article a lot better because now I saw at the bottom of the page only 5 references. Moreover, when I clicked on the references the only is saw was things that had to do something with plastic surgery. This is really strange, and I do not understand how this can be the case. However, the sources throughout that are other Wikipedia links are great for the most part. Because sometimes there are not enough. Again, I would like the article to be more current so therefore also the sources. As there are only 5 references that are really bad, I would say that there are way more better sources available than the authors mentioned in this article.

Organization and writing quality

I think it is written pretty well. I would not say it is great but also would not say it is bad. It is average in my opinion. I think some sections could have been more concise and other sections should have been added. Besides that, I think it is pretty easy to read. As English is not my first language, I am not great at grammar myself but I did not really notice any grammatical or spelling errors. I like how this article is broken into the different sections.

Images and Media

I think that the article definitely needs some work here because I feel like in this topic images are really important. The authors did use some good/okay pictures, but this can be improved. For example, the first picture should be way more interesting and eye-catching as that would result in more people being interested in the articles when they glance at it. The captions could have been better as well because some are too long, and one is even missing. I think the images could have been laid out more in a visually appealing way by spreading them and picking pictures with better collars.

Talk page discussion

There are people that gave feedback on this article. That feedback is in my opinion too harsh. They make it seem like the article is not neutral which it in my opinion is for the most part. Of course, as music is a subjective topic it is nearly impossible to stay completely objective but in my opinion, they did a great job at that. Besides the too harsh and in my opinion not really useful feedback like “This is one of the worst articles I've seen on wiki in almost every way. But I dont have the energy or compunction to argue about it”, there is so good feedback. For example, the introduction is indeed redundant and some things could have been expanded a bit better and the history could have been explain a bit better and expanded a bit more.


 * Notice that some of this criticism is from a long time ago. So it may have been accurate when they wrote it Pareichert (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It is part of a WikiProject and it is rated C-class but Top-importance.

Overall Impressions

I think there are many things that could be improved. First of all, some essentials topics should be added. I would expand the history as it is really important of course. The thing that needs the most improvement are the references. I would also improve the pictures. Moreover, I would read the talk page carefully and take the useful feedback and improve the article. The general layout of the article is good but like I said before I would add certain topics.