User:MANAT33Gal/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Supergirl (TV series)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am a big fan of the show and have a good understanding of the information in and discussion around the show. This makes it easier for me to comprehend the information and evaluate the accuracy, relevance, and completeness of the article.

Evaluate the article
The article overall is very well done. To start, the lead section is very concise and does a good job of explaining the show with a brief summary and then going into quick description of the actual production and airing of the show itself. There is not any extra or unnecessary information here. The content is also sufficient and well balanced with information that is relevant. There are some areas that are missing small details in terms of up to date information. Some of the character summaries and ratings leave out the most recent season information and statistics but other areas, like the awards section, go all the way to the current 2022 accolades pending results. Furthermore, the tone, organization, and images used are all well utilized and correctly applied. The article holds a neutral, professional tone, presents information chronologically in well broken up sections, and uses multiple images and tables to enhance the understanding of the article. Additionally, the sources and references look thoroughly developed and the internal links all seem functional and relevant. The editors did a very good job of connecting the information with other Wikipedia articles and outside sources that provided further relevant information. Finally, the talk page seemed beneficial and brought up some good points for improvement. However, I did see a discussion from a year ago on adding a section detailing the criticism the show received that was okayed, but the material was not in the current article suggesting a later deletion. The other topics brought up good discussion as well and had respectful responses, but did not lead to any other changes. Overall, the article is very good and hits all of the sections for a prime Wikipedia article with strengths in the content and source use It could be slightly improved by adding the most recent developments (as of 2021) into certain areas, but otherwise doesn't seem to need any further changes.