User:Ngo0014/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Studio Ghibli

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article provides an interesting topic into understanding Japanese culture and animation. This article specifically focuses on Studio Ghibli, a well-known and loved Japanese animation studio.

Evaluate the article
The lead section in this article provides a simple and concise overview of the topic; however, there are some sections in the article that are not mentioned in the lead section, such as the distribution rights. The lead section is not detailed enough because the other sections delved deep into various aspects of this article that were not mentioned in the lead section. For example, in the history section, a big subtopic was about Tokuma Shoten, yet he was not shown in the lead section.

The content of this article is good because it follows a chronological format. This is effective because the main point is to show how Studio Ghibli came to be. The content is relevant and up-to date. On the other hand, the last sentence of the first paragraph mentioned video games, yet they were not discussed in any of the following sections. This article does not address any underrated topics, only what is written in the lead section.

This article is good, providing unbiased and neutral information. A big chunk of the information in this article relates to history, while other topics are underrepresented, such as the various films of Studio Ghibli. The content provided for these topics consisted of only small paragraphs and a chart.

The diversity of sources and references in the article is substantial. The references contain sources from both Japan and the United States. Not all of the sources are reliable; however, because of the extensiveness of the references, the diversity of sources is also extensive. This includes peer-reviewed sources and new articles.

The shorter sections are concise and easy to read, while the longer ones are clunky and hard to follow. This is because of the overly detailed explanation of the history of this topic. This could have been broken further into different sections, such as one that is dedicated to important people relating to this topic.

The article does not provide any images, only a chart. The use of images and media would have greatly helped the chunkiness of the history section, making it easier to understand.

The article's talk page focuses on fixing and updating incorrect information. It also goes into more detailed explanations of certain sections and encourages the readers to think deeper into the topics by asking questions. This article is a part of the Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

I would rate this article 7/10. This is an average score because, although there is a diversity of references and sources, which is one of the strengths, the article lacks a diversity of topics because a large chunk of this article focuses on history. Furthermore, the talk page mentioned other topics that could have been included in the article, such as the importance of certain films and additional media. Overall, the article needs to be developed further.