User:Lillimay7/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Lisztomania

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I was initially interested in this article because it has to do with both Western and Central Europe. I lived in Western Europe for some time and my best friend was from Hungary. As I continued to read the article I found it interesting how fan bases and celebrity praise date back to Lisztomania. Personally, I’ve never felt attached enough to any specific composers, artists, or performers to follow them through their life choices or become hysterical in their presence.

Evaluate the article
The first sentence in the article’s lead clearly states what the article concerns. Following, just about every main section is addressed within the lead paragraph. There are some anecdotes that aren’t quite touched on in the lead but the amount included is appropriate for a brief description. The intro was just concise enough to get the point across and offer a simple definition of what exactly Lisztomania is. One might consider it being a little too concise depending on what the researcher is looking for. As a person browsing through Wikipedia, looking for interesting topics, it may have been more beneficial to have a little more lengthy of an intro. As a person in need of a quick answer or refresher, the conciseness of the lead was entirely appropriate.

The content wholesomely concerned the history of Lisztomania with multiple perspectives on experiences, and historical research that described the phenomenon. While the research stated is out-of-date, it is noted that at the time, this was out of the ordinary and was a completely new phenomenon. However, recent studies related it back to “Beatlemania,” and celebrity-fan behavior. Equity gaps weren’t applicable for this article.

The article was unbiased and didn’t favor any particular perspectives. It accounted for multiple perspectives such as historical research, relation to current phenomenon, anecdotes. The article could have held accounts on women who were experiencing Lisztomania rather than just being told what was going on. The article in no way sways the reader to one perspective over another, but rather objectively states what was happening.

The article has a thorough amount of fully functional sources dating back to as early as the 80’s and to as recent as 2019. While each fact is backed by a source, the sources aren’t quite to date. After researching, there doesn’t seem to be much research on the topic especially from valid sources and I was unable to find anything that was both reliable and could offer more contribution.

The article’s prose appeals to readers looking for facts without fluff. The article is just concise, clear, and free of grammatical and spelling errors. The organization lacks a little bit and could be more structured. The addition of more sections would greatly encourage organization.

There is only one image in the article which adheres to the copyright regulations, but the caption is not too detailed. It only states that it is an image of Liszt in 1843. The chosen location for this image was appropriate nonetheless but there could be more contribution to the collection of images.

The “Talk” section is heavily comprised of editors discussing the relation to the film, “Lisztomania,” and whether or not there should be any content regarding the film on this page. The editors go back and forth on the significance of creating a page for disambiguating between Lisztomania, the phenomenon and Lisztomania, the film. One editor questions the validity of the one included image because of the lack of caption. The article is currently assigned to a Wiki Education Foundation course project.

Overall, I appreciate the conciseness of this article. It is straight forward and is linked back to current phenomenon. In addition, the authors make it clear that historical researchers of the phenomenon were living in a time period where this behavior was strange which is important contextualizing. The article could be improved with more images, sources, types of sources. The article is moderately developed. It’s a straight forward topic to being with but it seems there could be more evidence out there in libraries. It spans 7 different languages for many readers to appreciate. The page was created in 2010 and has had only 2 edits within the last months, but over a hundred total.