User:Johnson-81/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Hydrogen Bomb

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This is an article that applies well to our class that I understand decently well. My first impression of this article is that it is extensive and well put together.

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.)

The lead section of the article is well done. It provides a concise and clear introduction to the material to be discussed in greater depth further down in the article. The article has good content that is up to date and well put together. The content stays relevant to the topic being discussed. This article is entirely neutral with an informative tone that does not attempt to persuade the reader in any way. The article has extensive citations from good sources that are for the most part current. The sources seem to be the best available for the article and come from a variety of authors. All of the links seem to work. The article is well written with no glaring spelling or grammar mistakes. The article's organization seems odd as the design variations and the bombs resulting from design variations should be under the same category but are not. The article's images are well placed, captioned, and explained by the article. I believe the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The talk page for the article consists solely of a few edit requests and explanations. The article is rated C-class for several projects including Military History, Physics, Chemistry, and Environment and was once a featured article candidate. The article is peer reviewed and was once a featured article candidate. The article overall is a level-4 vital article with a C-class rating. The article's strengths are extensive amounts of detailed information with good writing structure within the sections. I feel this article could be organized better, but this could be a simple oversight of an issue of restructuring on my part. I feel this article is well developed and could be considered complete as is.