User:ResearchMethods88/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Chuck Stone

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate
Chuck Stone caught my eye because of his work in Civil Rights and his interesting background! He wasn't afraid to speak his mind against opposition, and seems to have had a strong character. His work as a reporter and negotiator was interesting

Evaluate the article
The lead section is good. The first line establishes well what the article is about, the paragraph overall sets up the rest of the article--minus early life--and sets up Chuck Stone's personality and achievements. It's a little short but a good introduction. It doesn't outright include a mention of the following sections.

The article is really good on content in some places and lacking in others. The Civil Rights and Personal Life section is short compared to the rest. Also, the career section speaks about all his achievements and rewards, but the Awards section only has one.

The tone is well-done and neutral, but still informative. It discusses his minority views and civil rights work very well and unbiased.

Most of the sources are linked and varied. However, one or two claims are unsourced.

Article is well-organized and what is written is well-written.

The article only has a single image. Do most articles have more? Potential to add images and media. Image is captioned well.

The talk page had some brief contention about his correct birthday and his status as a Tuskegee Airman. There were also some interesting quotes listed there that were not included in the actual article for some reason. Perhaps they were too biased?

Overall I believe it is a good and well-developed article. I think it is missing certain aspects in Civil Rights, Awards, and also in media. I feel like more quotes about his character could be added, since a lot of them are very interesting, but don't know if that is too un-neutral.