User:Joel Garvey/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Battle of Brunkeberg

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it involved war which is really interesting to me. Also I had never heard of it, so I wanted to learn something new.

Evaluate the article
The lead gives a good summary of the article, contains information found later in the reading, and is concise. However, the lead does not really include a summary of the articles sections at all. In terms of content, it seemed to be up to date, and relevant, but I think it could use some more information to fill in gaps. This doesn't have much to do with the equity gap as it is talking about 700 year old whites guys. The article is written in a neutral tone, and doesn't intend to sway the reader at all. It covered most of the basic information but some more detail on the tactics of each side and the aftermath of the battle. The sources are reliable and come from good sources like national libraries. I think there could be more information out there on this topic that wasn't included in the article. For this reason, the references part of the article is rather small, and I found a couple more articles and sources that could have been used in my own research of the battle. The links that are provided did in fact work. The organization of the article was pretty good overall. There was continuity and flow from each section to the next, and it felt like it told a good story overall. I didn't notice any grammatical errors while reading either. The article includes one image to go along with the content. It has a short caption and abides by wikipedia regulations. There is also a graph depicting deaths, dates, and names. I think adding the image was a good idea. There were no conversations in the talk portal for this article. However, as it has to do with the history of 2 nations and war, it is a part of 3 different wikiprojects. Overall, the article still has a lot of work ahead of it before it can be featured and graded well. There needs to be more content and sources as the article is very brief. With is did do a good job at was giving a very short summary of this event in history and describing it in a way which was easy for the reader to understand. But improving on the length of the article and, along with that, boosting citation use would make this article so much better.