User:Poudretteite/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Blue Öyster Cult

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it was first topic I recognized out of the lists. The topic matters because Blue Öyster Cult was a major band with hits that are still played, and the band is a key player in the prog scene. My preliminary impression of the article was positive: The article is detailed and lengthy, a variety of sources are cited, and the subheadings appear well organized as well as proportionate given the topics discussed.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The lead has an introductory sentence that adequately describes the band. There is information presented there that isn't mentioned in the article from what I can tell (e.g., the number of records sold), but this information is generalized and may be inferable from the body text. The lead is only two paragraphs long and is limited to the information that is most important, such as why the band is famous and why it remains so.

Content: The content is definitely relevant to the topic, ranging from the band's history to its interactions with others, both as collaborators and as inspirers. The content is up to date as far as I can tell: There is a section detailing the band's latest album, released in 2020. There doesn't appear to be irrelevant content, and generally less important content is nearer to the bottom of the article. There is no discussion of underrepresented topics or populations.

Tone and Balance: The article appears to be relatively unbiased. There are some uncited superlatives throughout the article, but in general a neutral tone is taken. Claims don't appear to be biased; citations are usually provided and the band and its disagreements are discussed quite holistically. Minority viewpoint don't appear to feature much in this article, though there is some mention of how some people have the band certain nicknames over the years.

Sources and References: The sources given in the article are varied (often coming from music magazines) and are regularly provided. There are some paragraphs that do not feature a citation, though, as well as two statements in the article with "[citation needed]" following them. Sources are up to date, with the most recent citation coming from 2021. I'm not sure how diverse the spectrum of authors is, but a variety of authors are provided. It's hard to say whether better sources exist: Most sources on the internet are focused on minutiae or reviews, while music magazines are more likely to focus on the bigger picture. Every link that I tried worked.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is not necessarily concise, but is split in a way that makes it easy to navigate, making the length tolerable. It's clear and easy to read, with natural syntax and simple vocabulary. While there are some grammatical errors (including in the lead), these are minor and could easily go unnoticed by non-editors. The article is definitely well organized — most of the article is dedicated to the band's chronological history, grouped into eras, and the remaining portion of the article is reserved for discussion of the band's style, marketing, influence, and so forth.

Images and Media: The included images enhance understanding of the topic by showing the band as it develops (and later in the article showing the hook and cross symbol the band eventually adopted). The captions for the images are clear and concise. The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations as most are in the public domain and those that aren't are cited. The images aren't laid out in a way that is meant to be visually appealing but rather to accompany the text, so the images of the band are in chronological order, which makes sense to readers. The first image is of the band, though it's of the band in a much later stage than readers may be thinking about when they search the band. (Nevertheless, that appears to be the trend for bands that still perform.)

Talk Page Discussion: There isn't much in this article's talk page, but what is there is major. One person noted an incorrect link; another mentioned the name of the bar in Police Academy (and was asked for sourcing by another user); a third noted an edit in which they changed a fact to an opinion. The article is part of a number of C-class WikiProjects. The last question in the prompt under this section doesn't appear to apply for this class as we haven't discussed Wikipedia much yet.

Overall Impressions: There doesn't appear to be a rating listed for this article aside from being listed as C-class by WikiProjects and as a level-5 vital article. The article's main strength is the variety of sources from a variety of times that it uses to back up its information. The organization of the article is also a major strength as the article is very easy to navigate and is predictable in the order of information. The main area for improvement for this article appears to be citations, though — while the sources that are provided are good, there appear to be a number of unsubstantiated claims throughout the article as well. Some copyediting may also be done to clear up syntax throughout the article, but this is not likely to be noticeable to the average reader and is significantly less important than citing sources. I believe the article is well developed as is, but, as the Talk page states, it could still use some substantial improvement given the importance of the band.