User:Liachrissie/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
String Quartets, Op. 33 (Haydn)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article was chosen to evaluate to get an idea on how to properly read an article on Wikipedia, so I can understand what to look for in a good article and/or an article that could use some improvement. My first impression of the article was that it had good qualities to it, although there were still some things that it could be improved on.

Evaluate the article
With the lead section being the most important section of the article, I feel like there are big improvements to be made. Some examples:


 * There are topics mentioned in the lead section that is not mentioned in the body of the article. Like mentioning the premiere of the piece, but not talking about it in the body of the article.
 * There are also topics that are mentioned in the body of the article that is not mentioned in the lead section. Like mentioning how Haydn directed Orfeo ed Euridice, but this was not brought up in the lead section.

Next, for the content sections, in combination with tone and balance. I like how the writer wants to give attention to all the quartets and movements. However, there is a big imbalance with the content that is given. For example:


 * Sections Opus 33 No. 1, 3, and 6 have very little information about the pieces compared to Opus 33 No. 2 and 5. While, on top of that, Opus 33 No.4 has zero information on describing the piece underneath the given pictures of the music. Although, with Opus 33 No. 2 only the fourth movement and the form within the movement is strongly talked about compared to the other movements who do not get talked about at all. My recommendation would be to give equal attention to all the quartets.

Although, I think what is good about the content sections are the article has a neutral perspective, all the sources the writer used are cited and they are good and reliable sources too.

I also think, overall, the article is well organize. I think anyone can get through the article without any issues and it is an easy read. The major sections in the body of the article tries to reflect the major points of the topic. But, as stated it can use some improvements for the imbalance of the different sections.

For the imagines that were used in the article, I feel that it is a good start on trying to show parts of the different movements and is visually appealing. However, it almost lacks a purpose. For example:


 * What is common about every section in the body of the article it shows what the beginning of every movement looks like. If the writer feels obligated to do so, then there also needs to be a typed out explanation on why these photos have a purpose and what is trying to be shown. In the section, Opus 33. No. 1, for the first movement there is an explanation on how the piece pretends to start in one key before it goes into it's original key. If that is what the writer wants to show, than the writer should show a picture of how that works. Because if a non-music major has to read up on this article, they will not automatically understand what that means or what that looks like.

I feel this should be done with all the sections in the body of the article and/or be very particular on which movement gets a photo. So, it has more of a purpose to be there and not just thrown in there.

Within the talk page there was a comment about changing the article name, which an editor changed it to what it is now, based on the suggestion from another editor. There is also a conversation about a whether a statement should be removed or not because of what an editor wrote down but never came back to afterwards. The Wikipedia article is rated under the Wikiproject Classic Music, which is an article page that is related to classic music. Lastly, in class we not only talk about the piece itself, but we also talk about what was happening around the world during that time period and who is listening to it or who is performing it. Like we look at the bigger picture than just the piece itself.

In summary, the article is a Wikiproject under the Classic Music section supported by Composition Task Force. This is shown at the top of the talk page. The strengths of this article was it is very organized and easy to read, it also has good sources and has them cited at the end of some paragraphs. What can be improved is the lead section needs to be typed in a way where the information that is stated needs to be in the body of the article and visa versa. Also, the sections in the body of the paragraph has little to no information on the majority of them except for two sections. Although, even those sections only go into detail of one movement while the writer mentions all four movements. Lastly, I think if the writer is going to show pictures of the piece itself, then those pictures should have a reason on why it is being shown and what is it trying to tell us. The idea of the article is well developed and the organization is there, but the information itself is underdeveloped and needs improvement.