User:Kgl49!/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Disney animators' strike

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.)

I chose this topic because I love Disney and it is a crisis that the company had to deal with. From first impressions it doesn't seem well written and seems to not have many information sources. I used the link given in the instruction to the C-class articles and this is what came up. After then looking at the article from jsut looking up the topic, the article was very different and seemed to be very well written and insightful.

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.)

Lead Section:

The lead section was very short and gave a quick overview of what happened in two sentences. The lead doesn't go over the major section nor is it written in a way that someone that knows nothing about the topic would understand. Overall, i think that the lead was good but should have a little more detail about what happened.

Content:

The content is very through and detailed about what happened and seems to be up to date and relevant to the topic. Overall, all the information in the content makes sense why its in the article and covers the underrepresentation of the work and payment equalization needing to be done at Disney at the time.

Tone and Balance:

While the article tries to stay as neutral as possible, it does have a tone of being in favor of the union strikers side. However, I think that is because there isnt many sources of information from the other side. Overall, the viewpoint of the article are underrepresenting Walt Disney's point of view. While I don't think that the article is trying the persuade the reader to think a certain way but the information that is presented is more leaning to favor the striker's side.

Sources and References:

For this section they had their sources very well organized and cited when they needed to in the article. The sources used are as current as they can be on this smaller topic and they are written by different authors. These are all very good resources compared to what I could find, also all have working links.

Organization and writing quality:

The article is well written and easy to read. The only area with weird formatting is the Aftermath and Notable Departures but that is because of having to do lots of citing in that area. I think that the article could've had more sections but what they have now does the job.

Images and Media:

There is only one image on the page and the caption is a basic understanding of the image. From what I can tell it doesn't have any links to where they got the image so it does mess with copyright issues. Lastly, the image is in a descent location on the page, but it doesn't add much to the page overall.

Talk Page Discussion:

This is a C-Class article and the talk page started by discussion how back the original page was and talk about how great it was after one person had fixed it. After that it was just changes to little aspects of the article. I think that the talk page and the article page match up with where the article is at in production.

Overall Impressions:

I think that the status of the article is pretty complete, there doesn't seem to be much else that needs to be added other than maybe or detailed accounts of the situation but that information could just not be available. The strengths of the article is that it is easy to follow and gives a good picture of the situation but the weaknesses of the article are that it seems a little one sided and it could use more real person accounts in it. I think that the article is well developed article.

Katie ~