User:InventiveAssembler27/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the Cosimo de Medici page, Cosimo de' Medici

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Cosimo's political legacy plays a huge role in the events of the 1492 Papal election, and moreover, I am extremely interested in his life and politics. I hope to play a character who is impacted by Cosimo, such as one of his sons, and therefore evaluating his article will help me both glean more information about him and also evaluate what has been written about him.

Evaluate the article

 * Everything in the article seemed very relevant to Cosimo's life, works, and legacy. It cleanly states not only his life as he grew up into the position that de did, but also the necessary backstory to explain his family's rise to power and how he was able to start in such a solid position. The several sentences on his father, Giovanni, did however seem unnecessary and a distraction from the overall topic of Cosimo, but an argument can be made that his backstory was necessary to understand Cosimo's unique position.
 * The information seemed up to date given the material I have learned so far in the coursework, but there was a large amount missing in the "Death" section that could be added to. His legacy was summarized in two sentences, which is noticeably shorter and briefer compared to all the other sections of the page. His political legacy and the fallout of his death should have been covered in more depth. Similarly, the short section about philosophy should be broadened and expanded, as it seems to summarily conclude that his protégé Lorenzo was the one who truly had an interest in philosophy. Considering what we were taught about Cosimo's patronage of humanism and personal philosophy, this seems incorrect.
 * The tone was overall neutral, however I believe that, again, the philosophy section of the article presents only a single interpretation of Cosimo's patronage of philosophy. The article also contends that Cosimo was not viewed as an autocrat during the lead paragraph, which seems like a highly contestable position given the information and details given in the sections below.
 * Some of the links are out of date or inaccessible; for example. citation #32 has a link to a website which requires a USF login to be able to access. Other citations seem highly suspect: for example, citation #36 leads to to a somewhat broken website that does not seem credible compared to other sources.
 * In the talk pages are discussions about several pieces of information that seem contradictory or incorrect, such as the birthday or the portrait, or possibly about his marriage status. There appears to be intense discussion related to information coming from the sensationalized "Medici" TV series. This page is part of the Biography WikiProject, and is rated as level 4 vital article and as C-Class. The discussion appears to have a great deal more typos, informality, and emotional argument than I expected coming from the tutorial.