User:Rkm22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
2020 United States presidential primary elections

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I'm interested in understanding how Wikipedia might describe such a contentious event that's fairly recent, so personal convictions are still quite high. I want to know how biases might be reflected in such an article. I chose this over the 2020 American presidential election because its controversies, in some sense, are not quite over yet.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section – I didn't see any summary that describes the event as a whole.

Content - The content is quite detailed, breaking down voting processes by state and major competing factions. Some of the article's analysis, however, seems to be broad-brushed. For example, it asserts that " Politico 's Elena Schneider described these clashes as a "Democratic civil war". During this period, there was a general shift to the left in regards to college tuition, healthcare, and immigration among Democrats in the Senate.". The sources cited only look at a few Senators who shifted, rather than a consensus. It would have been interesting to elaborate on the Republican factions (besides just quoting Senators) on the different nominees.

Tone – the article takes a neutral tone, especially when describing the competing factions between Democrats. The other third party candidates section gave very brief detail to candidates such as Gloria La Riva. But this is a bias in the American political system, not the fault of the authors.

Sources and References: All the links I tried worked. They were from reputable sources, mostly political news outlets.

Organizing / Grammar: The article has a nice visual for the ultimate nominees based on the primaries, with the Republican and Democrat sections separate. No grammatical error as far I could tell.

Images and Media: The main two party nominees as well as Libertarian candidates had images. That level seemed appropriate to me.

Talk page: There was no visible talk page, which I found odd.

Overall thoughts: I was fairly impressed with the article. It tackled a recent and sensitive issue fairly gracefully and informatively.