User:Howling Commando/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Aziz Shavershian - Wikipedia

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.)

because it's generally succinct which would take less time to analyze

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.)

it has 5 concise lead sections. They are very basic information about the article's topic and don't include extra information that don't exist in the article.

The content is shorter than I expected, it may be the article's subject massive online presence and vast online legacy that makes it hard to ensure both the content's validity and legality because the article itself is supposed to be neutral, not favoring or criticizing a subject. Therefore, the content you can find on this page is relevant to the subject, the article itself doesn't include all the information of the subject, only the bare basic, so it' s not as informative as it would be.

the article is not trying to manipulating readers into forming a specific view towards the subject. If the article is anything, it's as vanilla as one can be. The article is all about the least controversial points, everything, as a matter of fact, this article literally aims to be neutral, nothing controversial, except for one minor issue it covers is the subject's brother's arrest for illegal possession of steroids, aside form that, no minor views are included.

the sources are solid, it uses mainstream newspapers and media in AUS, and others aren't as solid because the individual's most presence is online, so it's blend of mainstream sources and online sources.

the writing is written for human readers, it's sensible and understandable to me.

only one image of the subject in this article, it's visually appealing. the image itself isn't necessarily a "free photo', it can be a problem of copy right issue, but it's there

the talk page has three attempts, the article itself was edited recently this year, clearly people still care about the article's subject, and it should have more heated debates on the talk page.

the article is really short, but unsurprising. The subject's presence were mostly online, so it's understandable that online content aren't the most reliable ones for a WIKI article. I'm understandably disappointed. This article aims to cover facts and precise&reliable information about the subject, so it's not as exciting as I expected. It's dry and innocuous. The article can be improved by adding more content aside form the basic information. I tend to feel like that this article is under-developed, too short.