User:Leeza.belanger/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Retro style

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 simply because I like the retro aesthetic. And, as I'm doing this exercice as a part of my interior design course, the subject fits well. That being said, my first impression of the article is that it's a bit confusing to read. I feel like the definition part is not clear and concise enough. I also think that the historical aspects incorporated in the definition section could fit better in another section of their own.

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 first paragraph of this article doesn't give the most important informations to the reader. In fact, some historic facts are soon listed instead of giving a concise and up to date definition of the retro style. Overall, the lead is a bit overly detailed and could be smaller and more true to the present.

Content

The article's content seems to be relevant to the topic, but it feels like it presents quite narrow points of view and informations. For example, the different types listed in the article are reduced to a few examples only, which made my feel like I didn't get a real overview of the subject.

Tone and balance

There are some heavy claims in this article like this one :  The desire to capture something from the past and evoke nostalgia is fuelled by dissatisfaction with the present . The writer seems to be biased toward this way of thinking about the retro style.

Sources and references

Not all written facts are backed up with sources, like this one :  In this case ‘retro’ indicates a value, which is also partly why today's retailers produce new objects in an old style . The majority of the sources do not provide links. Some other links do not work, and some of the functioning ones do not seem scientifically backed up.

Organization and writing quality

A lot of the sentences in this article are not clear and concise enough, in my opinion. I found it was a a bit hard to read. I also thing the article could be better organized. It do not feel like it was sensibly organized. It feels a bit all over the place.

Images and media

Some of the images enhance the understanding of the topic, but others could be replace by better ones. For example, in the interior design's section, seeing a retro room could be a better fit and could express more the aesthetic. The images could also have been put in a more interesting way. Having them all on one side is not very appealing to the eye.

Talk page discussion

The article is rated C-class. it is part of three WikiProjects: Popular culture, Fashion and Philosphy: Aesthetics, which are all c-class as well. The main critics of the article are saying that it does not provide a whole overview of the topic, as some time periods are not represented. There is also some misinformations.

Overall impressions

All in all, the article could be improved by finding some new and reliable sources to make the whole text more credible and right. The article should also be more representative of the retro style as a whole and should not only focus on historical facts. A more actual view of the usage of the retro style would be very suitable.