User:Nicolasvalencia2018/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) String Quartets, Op. 33 (Haydn)

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.)

We have chosen this article because it could use some shoring up and it is relevant enough to have factual material to add.

Evaluate the article
(Compo

se 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 has a good opening but as you read it, it does not outline the major sections that it will be covering. It also goes directly to information on Russian rulers and other composers that have nothing to do with the overview of the piece or its major sections. The article's content is clear and sticks to the major sections of the subject. The content is relatively current since a majority of it is historical description. There is not much that is missing without going into detail of more musicological material on the quartets. It has nothing that addresses Wikipedia's article equity gaps

The majority of the technical material is sound and factual, pertaining to the composition and form of the quartets, without any bias. However, they make frequent comments on history that is not backed by sources. These are generally comments on public opinion and musical intention. From a musicological perspective it makes sense because we are used to the subjectivity of describing music and it's history, but it might not be right for a wiki article.The tone of the article is sound for the most part. The content for the most part provides description of facts without explanation or claims that favor representation of any parts of the subject.

The majority of the facts and certainly all the quotes of this article are based on good sources and citation. The sources used are reputable and have been selected well and the external links are acceptable because they provided pictures of the score and relevant audio files. However, I think there is not enough sourcing of information. There is a multitude of information available on this topic and there are better places to get information from that one could argue would be more objective with more or better peer review. I do not think there is a representative amount of sources used to feed the article.

The article is relatively well written, there are no major grammatical mistakes or spelling errors. It is relatively concise and easy to read for someone with a general grasp of music.

The images and media do a good job of supplementing the sections and their descriptions. They are clearly captioned, easy to follow, and fall in public domain.

The talk page is simple, It has one short interaction on how they named the article and the revision of it. It is pretty in line with what we discuss in class, and the article is part of the Classical Music project page.

I think the article is incomplete as there is more information to this topic than stated, and less sources than there should be. I believe this article has a relevant foundation and a concise approach that keeps it informative and pleasant. The main improvements to this article would be in verifiability of content, a better look at description vs personal explanation, and more sources that lend themselves to the subject.