User:Mnbvcxz1234567/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cultural Revolution

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 because it relates to secret measures states put in place to manifest power and manipulation of their citizens this matters because it had a tremendous impact on the culture of a state as it was transforming from a premodern state to a communist hub amidst great turmoil and transformation, and the world has a lot to learn from its negative example.

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 of the article has a good introductory sentence and provides a good overview of information in the sections to come with several specific examples. It may be a bit overly detailed for the lead, but if the lead is all the general wiki reader views, then they would walk away with a decent knowledge of this topic.

The content in the article is detailed and well organized in a chronological order. It starts with a deep dive into the background of the creation of Mao’s communist China, and provides details surrounding the major events leading up to the cultural revolution itself. It really gives the reader a lot of insight into how it came to be and why Mao might have decided to implement this political reformation in this fashion in an easy to follow yet informative fashion. The content is extensive, and covers the different phases of the revolution and summarizes the aftermath of its impacts. Additionally, the article itself discusses an underrepresented event in global history, at least in comparison to European and American related events from my experience.

Its tone is quite neutral throughout its entirety and the facts are presented as facts without unsolicited historical expert opinions that are cited as such. The article appears to present factual information without attempting to persuade readers one way or another subjectively.

Images are well captioned with cited, small paragraph long captions that provide insight into their subject matter, which were all relevant to their respective section, and presented in easy to view and non distracting ways.

The bibliographical sources spanned wide time range, adding to the historiographical appeal to the article, with relevant and diverse scholars and accessible links.

Overall, the article is very good. It is comprehensive, well written, easy to follow (even has a timeline), and is well connected through different talk pages and wiki projects. It’s strengths include its chronological order and detail orientation, but I think the introductory lead could be simplified a bit with extraneous details added back into their respective sections. However, it is extremely well developed and is complete in my opinion.