User:JBmerlin/Evaluate an Article

Evaluation of "Bookbinding" page


 * Everything in the article is relevant, and I did not find any sections distracting.
 * I did not note any out of date information or missing information.
 * I believe that the overview section should be edited to be more concise and factual in tone: for example, sentences like "It is interesting to observe that the main problems faced by the mass-production bookbinder are the same as those that confronted the medieval craftsman or the modern hand binder" could be edited to achieve a more factual tone.
 * The article appears neutral to me in terms of not advancing a particular position or perspective. However, I believe that information on traditional bookbinding craftsmanship is over-represented when compared to bookbinding performed by experimental book artists.
 * The citations that I checked included working links, and the sources supported the facts cited in the article.
 * Not all of the facts are referenced. For those that are, most of sources appear to be reliable (scholarly books, books from reputable commercial publishers academic journals, online encyclopedias or dictionaries published by universities). One fact I investigated was sourced from a blog post of a bookbinder, which is definitely relevant but seems less reliable. Another fact was sourced from a publication by the Public Relations Division of a commercial airline company; the fact related to bookbinding techniques from the region serviced by that airline. This could be a biased source, but the bias is not noted in the article.
 * The talk page is extremely active, with input from people with varying levels of expertise. Wikipedians seem to agree that this is an important article that needs improvement; many discussions focus on communicating technical information clearly, concisely, and accurately.
 * The article is rated B-class. It is part of the Occupations WikiProject.
 * As noted above, Wikipedia's treatment of this topic mainly focuses on traditional bookbinding with less attention paid to experimental bookbinding, while our class discussed experimental bookbinding more. Additionally, Wikipedia's treatment incorporates more historical information than our discussions on bookbinding.