User:Laurenburschel/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
God Is a Woman

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
To be candid, I was simply perusing through potential articles to evaluate and came across an entire section of Wikipedia articles for Ariana Grande. Because I was intrigued by this section of articles (and love Ariana's music) I looked through the articles and found this one about the song "God Is a Woman." Since this is my favorite Ariana Grande song and because the song itself was met with some controversy, I wanted to check the article out. My first impression before reading the article was that it was formatted very well, concise, and gave a thorough review of all facets of its topic.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The lead section is concise and provides a solid overview of what is discussed in the article. The introductory sentence being interrupted by parentheses quickly made the sentence less clear and concise to me, however. Other than the introductory sentence, the lead section is quite concise and provides an overview of the sections that will be discussed later in the article.

Content:

The content of the article is appropriate for and relevant to the topic and provides up-to-date information on the details surrounding this song. All sections are balanced and provide the necessary details about each sub-heading's topic. There is neither too much detail nor too little detail throughout this article, giving all the important information in a concise manner.

Tone and Balance:

Throughout the article, the author maintains a neutral tone, providing facts with no bias and always with a properly cited source. The author does a good job of reviewing all of the important facts without letting personal opinions show. I did find it interesting that the controversy that came with the release of the song was not mentioned under "Critical reception," as I remember there being some religious groups being upset by the song. However, the topic of the song being controversial was touched on in a quote at the end of the section, so it was acknowledged in part. I think it's important to note this, but perhaps the author did not find much reliable information regarding the controversy or did not find it at all in their research.

Sources and References:

There is one quote at the end of the "Critical reception" section that is cited but does not have quotations properly placed at the beginning of the sentence, which made it seem like the author was not taking a neutral tone. This is an easy fix and easy to figure out for the reader, but it was confusing and could confuse those just skimming the article. Besides that one small issue, all sources were properly cited and formatted throughout the article. No facts were given without a citation, and each reference is a reliable and up-to-date one. The references are extensive and certainly reflect the available relevant information on this song, and when checked, the links work and lead to an accurate source.

Organization and writing quality:

As mentioned, this article has excellent organization. Each heading makes sense, as does the order of these headings. Additionally, the sections of the article are balanced and provide good overviews of each section's topic. There are tables that include information like awards the song was nominated for, charting information, and certifications, making this information easy to find and easy to read. Outside of formatting, the actual quality of the writing was good as well. There are no grammatical errors that I detected, other than the missing quotation mark mentioned earlier. The sentences vary in structure, allowing the writing to flow and making the article easy to read. It is clear what the author is saying at all times and the writing is not choppy or confusing. Overall, the organization of this article is very good.

Images and Media:

The article contains three images that follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations and are relevant to each section they are included in. Additionally, each image is captioned well, clearly describing what is going on in the picture in a concise and neutral manner. The images are professional pieces of media that enhance the article's content and its formatting. Lastly, the images are formatted well, with all three placed on the right-hand side of the article, spaced out in different sections.

Talk page discussion:

There were some heated debates amongst the users in the Talk page regarding if this song is a pop song, hip-hop song, or both. At the end of the section discussing this, it is noted that sources confirm it is both a pop and hip-hop song, and that is what is relayed in the article. Additionally, there was a large discussion about the stylization of the title of this song and whether it is "God Is a Woman" or "God is a Woman." Apparently, there are conflicting sources on which stylization is correct, and some streaming services have conflicting stylizations. The article touches on this in the introductory sentence, where both stylizations are accounted for. The article is rated as C-Class, and is a part of a few WikiProjects, including WikiProject Ariana Grande, WikiProject Hip hop, and WikiProject Pop music.

Overall impressions:

Overall, I believe the article is well-written, relevant, and neutral in tone. It is a solid article that provides information and details on the topic backed by reliable sources. The Talk page reveals that the concerns that have been brought up have been addressed, which is reflected in the published article. I believe the article could be improved by adding more discussion about the controversy surrounding this song to show all angles of the Critical reception, as well as fixing the quotation mark in the last quote of the Critical reception section. That being said, this article taught me a lot about this song and all of the facets surrounding what goes into creating and releasing a song. It is a decent article that provides all the vital and relevant information surrounding "God Is a Woman."