User:Kwenq11/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Life In Philadelphia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_in_Philadelphia

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 article after looking through the pages in the Academic discipline page, and scrolled towards social studies and noticed the title and was curious on the topic. This article matters since it surmises that of the media that was distributed during this period, which was all over the United Kingdom, and how media pushed harmful caricatures of Black people in the 1800s, which can be seen in some part of modern day. My preliminary impression of this article was neutral, as there were many images that showed what the Life In Philadelphia comics were and some explanations of what was occurring in said comics.

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.)

Evaluating the article's notability, the leading section of the article is very concise however what could be improve is touching the major sections of the article's topic since it's so concise and brief. The content of the article was edited as recent as January of 2023 though there are minor changes. Also the content seems to have more images and what is going on in them, majority being images. Images put into tables with descriptions, artist, year, and publishing. This article could use more information, perhaps touching more on the significance of these comics in pushing the harmful caricatures. The tone and balance of the article is pretty neutral.

Some gripes that I've noticed about this article are as follows. In the fourth paragraph of the background section, the information including in that paragraph from the source that it had "originated" there didn't mention information. The sources that were include most were archives from institutions and galleries that held them, a source that can only be viewed via an identification through a college (no. 5 in the references). Which if someone wanted access there should be access to the material to access whether the source is valid and goes through copyright.

Delving more into the assessment, looking into the "View History" and the "Talk" portions, there are some noticeable issues. Such as there only being four individuals that have worked on the article and that there are no chats or "Talks" at all. Meaning that aren't any fact checks between the individuals or whether the sources pulled is usable and or information is questioned.

Overall this article needs a lot more development. Such as notability with the sources and those who worked on the article and the reliability of sources and need more information on the topic. Having more users develop this article and fact check information and include more reliable sources, increasing it's validity and such.