User:Reywhatareyoudoing/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
String Quartets, Op. 33 (Haydn)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.) Class assignment!

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section

Overall, the lead section is nice. However, it includes a bit of trivia about Mozart's affinity for these sets of quartets that are mentioned once and never brought up again. I am not sure if it's relevant information.

Content

The content is nice laid out for readers to digest. However, a strikingly large emphasis is place on the form of Quartet Opus 33 No. 2, and very little is said about the rest of the quartets.

Tone and Balance

The tone of the article is mostly neutral. The only section that I would consider opinionated is the form analysis of the No. 2 quartet. No citations or anything were listed. Just taking the author's word for it.

Sources and Citations

For the most part, all citations are present where needed. They are as recent as the 1980s and going up to the 2010s. Not super up to date, but certainly permissible. Perhaps one or two more citations in the more opinionated spots would be nice. The ones provided seem to work.

Organization and Writing Quality

Good.

Images

Pictures of music score are useful and of good quality.

Talk

There have been discussions about the name of this article as well as the "Joke" aspect about one of Haydn's quartets. Wikiproject Classical Music.

Overall Impressions

The article is ok. It gives enough information for someone looking for brief information on the Opus. Certainly, referring to the cited sources would provide more information. It could use a lot more information for the rest of the quartets aside from No. 2. It feels underdeveloped. The article's strengths are its neutrality. Its weaknesses are its lack of information.