User:Mikeyosefj/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Indie rock

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because indie rock is one of my favorite genres of music, and was listed under the recommended C-class articles section.

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.)

The lead includes an accurate description of the term and does a good job of previewing and summarizing the rest of the article without mentioning any information that isn't in the article. It is also fairly concise, staying within the 4 paragraph limit.

The content covered is relevant to the topic, and the article does a great job of showing all of the musical branches that extend from the genre, and how the genre originated. The content is relatively up-to-date, although few bands, artists, and acts post 2010 are included. No content seems to not belong, and nothing truly significant is missing. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

The article is neutral, and does not seem to intend to persuade the reader in any way. No sentences or lines need to be improved in this regard, as the article is very straightforward and well-written. Though the article seems to focus more on older, seminal bands and albums, each sub-genre of indie rock is represented equally within the article.

The sources used in the article vary. The first source utilized in the first sentence of the lead is on a website which seems to be providing an essay-writing service, and though a name is given for the person who wrote the article—Madeleine Harrop—I could not find any extra information about this author, or any other works they have written. Though I did not comb through every source, this was the only dubious one that I could find, and it seems most of the other sources are relatively credible, and range from a variety of different websites and formats. There is also a decent range of ages for these articles—some are from the 1990s and 2000s, and the majority seem to be from the 2010s onwards. The article does not focus on topics specific to minority groups, cultures, or individuals, although there is not a large amount of diversity in the authors themselves. The majority of the links work, although there are a few instances when articles are referenced without a link, instead just using the name of the article as a source.

The article is well-written, well-organized, and not in-need of any grammar/spelling corrections.

The images used in the article are well captioned, and assist in showing the reader numerous bands and artists mentioned. They all adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and they do not clutter the webpage or obstruct readers' understandings of the text itself.

The talk page is fairly unassuming, and mainly includes criticisms about the page's subject matter and sub-topics. As previously mentioned, most of the criticisms are of the page's lack of representation for newer bands and artists from the genre and the disparity between music coming from the US, which almost seems to be the focus of the page, and bands (especially recent ones) coming from the UK and other countries. One commenter also wrote about how the page's entire focus is misaligned, since, in their words, "indie" is not a genre, merely a descriptor that does not relate to the sound of the music itself. The article is rated C-class, and is part of the WikiProjects for Rock Music, Alternative Music, and Music Genres Task Force.

Overall, the article is well-made, and seems to be relatively complete, only lacking some modern information which could help readers get a fuller sense of how the genres listed have evolved since their inceptions. It could be improved by updating some of the information therein and improving some of the lackluster sources. It is very well organized, and the broader content and ideas seem to be well thought out; in general, the article is adequately developed.