User:Kl33vil/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Geographer

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because it's mainly a definition so I feel like it would be easier to evaluate during this exercise. Anything too complex would cause me to overthink, so the simpler the better so I can have a good understanding on how to evaluate articles.

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 clear and concise. The writer made sire to redirect the rader in the beginning in case they were reading the wrong article, like if they were looking for a band or a work of art that has the same title as the article. In the lead section the writer starts out doing an overview but then gets very overly detailed for starting out.The content of the article does not veer away from the main topic of discussion. It is clear the writer is trying to touch on every topic relating to geography and the data look up to date.The tone and balance is neutral, there doesn't seem to be any bias made by the writer

The article is well organized, although wordy in the beginning the sections are split up in a way that makes it easier to know what's being discussed. The sources are very thorough as well, each image is captioned,and nothing seems out of place or that it's missing an explanation.

In the talk page discussion a lot of users are very confused on a lot of aspects on the article. Although short and sweet, the article has a lot of information that is not directly related to geography but instead things about geography, including a list of geographers and the writer discusses a painting which users feel does not belong or adds anything to the article.

In the beginning I felt the article was going in the right direction but I felt some changes are needed and things should be adjusted, taken out, and further explained. It quickly veers away from the term "Geography" and goes into geographers and things that are related to geography rather than the actual definition.