User:Helengracedaniel/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Alex Karev

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it was under the category of one of my favorite TV shows, and it was listed in the C-class section. I think this page is important because it is about an important, recurring character in Grey's Anatomy. There have been many times I turned to Wikipedia to clarify things about characters in shows and movies, typically because it's one of the first sites to pop up in a Google search. I'm sure there are others like me, and if the articles they are looking at don't meet the credible standards of Wikipedia, then the article should be improved! Upon first glance, there seemed to be a lot of text, but very few sources to back up what was written. There also seemed to be a heavy imbalance between the featured sections.

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.)

Lead Section: The first sentence is very succinct, but the lead section as a whole consists of two paragraphs: one that is a good overview, and one that repeats some of the previously stated information in more detail.

Content: The Storylines section is very developed, relevant, and up-to-date, but the section about the development of his character is lacking.

Tone and Balance: The writing is very neutral. The Storylines section heavily focuses on the beginning seasons that feature Karev, giving more detail about them than the following ones.

Sources and References: The Storylines section does not have very many sources to back up the information presented. The Development section contains more sources. The links, when needed, have been updated or corrected already.

Organization and Writing Quality: The organization of the article is pretty standard across similar Wiki pages I've looked at. The writing could be more concise, and some of the word choice is confusing. Another thing I noticed was that when referring to the character Alex Karev, the article switches between "Alex" and "Karev;" I'm not sure if it should be more standardized or not.

Images and Media: The article only contains one image, which could definitely be improved. The one image is well captioned and informative.

Talk Page Discussions: The article is rated C-class. The talk page consists of conversation about fair-use, references, and content that needs to be changed or added. I was slightly surprised by the lack of conversation present on the talk page. A lot of contributors also don't sign their comments.

Overall: I think the article could be more developed and also cite more sources. There is a lot about this character that is left unsupported or underdeveloped. Adding a few more images could also make the article come together. It is a great start for an article, but fixing grammar, adding more references and information will elevate this article out of being C-class.