User:Pengwyn00/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Phimai Historical Park

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it's relevant to the article that I'll be editing for my wiki assignment. It matters because the site I am doing my wiki assignment on is located within the Phimai Historical Park. My preliminary impression of this article is that it seems accurate but it's short, which probably causes a lack of detailed explanation, or maybe a lack of other points of view being represented.

Evaluate the article
Lead section: I think the lead section gives the reader an idea of what and where this location is, and touches on what gets talked about later in the article.

Content: The content in the article appears to me to be relevant and up to date, and with my limited knowledge about the topic it doesn't appear to have any missing content. This article is part of a WikiProject, helping to bridge the gap in articles relating to South East Asia.

Tone and balance: The article seems to be mostly neutral, but seems to only have one person working on it. It also contains some value statements that should be changed to be more neutral.

Sources and references: All of the links and sources at the end of the article work, and take you to sources about the site. There aren't a ton of sources, but it's also a pretty short article. Some sub categories have few footnotes, so they should be edited to be properly cited or removed.

Organization and writing quality: The article seems well organized into sub categories, although some are much longer than others and provide more information.

Images and media: The article contains multiple sourced images and a gallery for them at the bottom of the page.

Talk page discussion: It looks like there's nothing under the talk page, likely meaning only one person has worked on the page. This is something that causes bias or other problems within an article. With more people adding information on a topic, a wider view can be covered, and less information will be missed.

Overall impressions: I think this article has some flaws that come from only having been worked on by one person, but is still a pretty good article overall.