User:Okinawalover/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Shuri Castle - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this particular article about Shuri Castle because I know some of the history behind it. I used to live in Okinawa ,Japan and I always find it interesting to read about the landmarks from your home from different sources.
 * Absolutely. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Evaluate the article
Lead and Section:

The lead section in this article was very well written.

The information was detailed, straight to the point, and included all of the information about the topic.

It briefly stated the topics that would be covered in the following sections.

Content:
 * A fire! Oh that's terrible... Dr Aaij (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The content in the article is all up to date and relative to the history of the topic.

It goes into details about the castle that was not mentioned in the lead.

The content goes for beyond than the basic facts of the castle. It touches on several details about the castle itself and what took place inside of it.

Tone and Balance:

The tone and balance on this article is neutral.

The information does not attempt to persuade the reader to think a certain way about the castle.

Sources and References:

There are a lot of sources and references, but the article is very long so that is expected.

Almost every section is linked.

Not all of the links listed can be found. Some of those websites have been taken down.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The content in the article on lists the historical facts

There are no grammatical errors and it is split into well worded ,so it is easy to read.

Images and Media:

The article includes plenty of images that relate to the content and add to the general concept of the topic.

The images are placed near its topic so it flows well with the page.

Talk Page Discussion:

The talk page discussion mostly consisted of editors making grammar corrections or uploading more useful information that pertained to the topic.

Overall Impressions:

Overall, I think the article was put together very well.

The pictures were clear and added meaning and understanding to the topic.


 * OK. One thing: your comment on the sources. It's a long article, sure, but for one that length it doesn't really have a lot of sources (27 is not that many) and I think all but one of them are newspaper articles (many pertaining to the fire) and some websites. Note that the long, long section on all those individual parts is completely unsourced. The one book that's cited is by Osprey Publishing, and that's a publisher of hobby-ish not always reliable books--I happen to know this from work on military articles I've done. What is clear is that the research that went into writing this article wasn't very deep: even a cursory glance at Google Books, which you could have done too, reveals that there are significant sources that say something about the history, the construction, the role, etc. And there are three books and articles listed in the Further reading section: those are clearly worth incorporating, but the editors only list them, and don't work with them. If someone called Benesch publishes a book with a university press on Japanese castles, and an article on this particular one in a peer-reviewed academic journal, then that person's work should be brought in to the article. An editor named User:Toyotsu added the article (thank you, Toyotsu), and one hopes that they find time to improve the article because I think they know the subject matter. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)