User:Owenpayne2000/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Death

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Initially, I was just browsing C-Class articles in hopes of finding something interesting and eye-catching to evaluate. Before long, I found myself staring Death in the eyes. Well, maybe not in the eyes, but I was on the talk page for the page about Death. From here I had decided that Death is a good place to start, and I began my evaluation. I wanted to evaluate Death as an article because of how personal it can be, and if I can understand when objectivity is used in talking about death, then I think I can understand it anywhere.

Lead Section
The lead section provides a good introduction to the article I'm going to read. The first sentence clearly defines the topic of the article, as well as explaining how death occurs. The lead introduces a few ideas that are explored in later sections and doesn't introduce anything that isnt discussed at some point within the article. This section is concise and straight to the point. The lead vaguely alludes to some of the other sections within the article, but not strongly enough in my opinion.

Content
The article seems to have good content, and sections lacking in physical writing are linked to a separate article that discusses the information within that section in detail. There are certain sections that exist with little content (as you mentioned to me, the Humanities section), there is a lack of discussion about death in religion and how it relates to the social world. Initially I had figured that this was because the linked articles discussed those topics in depth, however, in order to make this article complete these sections should be briefly filled out. No reason that a reader should have to article jump to understand brief POVs about differing religious responses or traditions to death. It is difficult to tell whether a section is overflowing or lacking in information, especially surrounding the topic death. I've chosen to deem these sections as satisfactory, as they gave me enough information to understand the purpose of the section within the article without straying off topic.

Tone and Balance
This article is well balanced and written in an effective, neutral tone. There is a disparity in the amount of information presented, there seems to be more focus given to the STEM aspects of death rather than the Social Science aspects of death, though, this seems to be purposeful. The article does little to bridge any of Wikipedia's equity gaps, but this could be because of the unavoidably universal experience that is death. By trying to tell any minority stories or share any information the article may become too specific to remain on topic as generally about death.

Sources and References
This article provides a large variety of diverse and sourced authors for their references. Sources were working and reliable. The sources I looked at seemed up to date or accessed recently, whoever the author/top contributor is, they keep this article up to date.

Organization and Writing Quality
Well written, well organized, and concise. There is the occasional word that I would replace for the sake of better writing, but nothing drastic needs changing.

Images and Media
The images present are legally sourced. They are distributed and placed in a aesthetically pleasing manner. Images are ethnically diverse and provide information that supplements and enhances my understanding of the topic of the article.

Talk Page Discussion
This page doesn't seem to have a very active talk page, though it does have a lot of information about plans for the article. The article itself is of interest to a surprising 10 Wikiprojects! All of these projects rate this article as mid-importance or higher, though all projects agree this article is rated as c-class. There is a general lack of discussion, most edits or discussions I saw were unsubstantial or without any actual claim. The archived discussions, however, are quite expansive. This article seems to have been in development since 2007, with constant fluctuations about what deserves to be covered by the article. Recently, conversations about this article have subsided, and it is unclear as to why--especially seeing as the article is far from finished.

Overall Impressions
I personally think this is a good article, though I understand why it hasn't officially become "a good article." Death is such a vast, diverse, and universal topic that there is always something that can be added or learned or changed. The topic is a constantly fluctuating one despite the constancy that death provides. I think the best ways this article can be improved upon are by expanding the subjects it covers and the depth at which these subjects are examined.