User:Nsufi01/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I will be evaluating the Neapolitan Ice Cream article.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I feel that there could be more contributions to this article. It is a well-known ice cream flavor, so going more in depth on the history of the flavor and the current status of the flavor would be helpful. There are some broken links in the page that might need some fixing as well.

Lead Section
The lead introduction of the Neapolitan Ice Cream article is good on describing the main topic of the article. But, the lead introduction only describes what the ice cream is, and not a brief introduction of the major sections in the article.

Content
The content of this article is pretty concise, but a bit brief though. It goes into the history of where it came from and how the ice cream flavor was made, and it included opinions of food historians which is insightful to the content. But, it would be better if it included more pictures of the flavor from over the years instead of how it looks like now. It does not include the link for the person who recorded the first recipe of the flavor. Although, it does include how Neapolitan immigrants brought a similar recipe to the United States.

Tone and Balance
This article is good with keeping the tone neutral throughout the reading. It does not have opinions such as "this flavor is the best ice cream flavor" or "this flavor is the worst ice cream flavor".

Organization and Writing Quality
This article is easy to read, and it does not have grammatical errors. It is well organized by section too.

Images and Media
Though it is relevant to the topic, this article only has two images. One of the images has an inappropriate image caption ("Block of neapolitan ice cream, taken by me. And yes, I later ate it. Best $2.50 I ever spent on Wikipedia").

Talk Page Discussion
Talk page discussion is minimal, it is mostly citation and grammar correction.

Overall Impression
The overall impression of this article is that it is under-developed. It would be better if it went in depth with images and media, and expanding on the topic a little more as well. But, the article includes good references, and for the most part it is easy to read.