User:Rlyantonio/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Johns Hopkins University Press

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I found this article through the "C-Class Articles" link provided in the training module. As a strong supporter of Johns Hopkins University, I was surprised to see their press division's Wikipedia page in the C-Class list, and I thought it would be interesting to analyze the page. On first impression, the article was very badly written, and the talk page consisted entirely of angry comments.

Lead Section
The lead section was lacking in detail, and contained an uncited claim about the size of the organization that appeared to be biased toward the organization. This could be fixed either by adding a citation, or removing the claim. The lead section could be enlarged by adding and expanding a summary of the sections that follow, such as the organization's history and areas of coverage.

Content
The content section is lacking detail, and also includes content that is not relevant to the topic. Content can be expanded by separating the information in the current general categories/divisions into more specific categories and adding additional information and citations for each category. New categories could include: Founding, Later History, Key Staff, Notable Projects, Publications, Awards, and Student Involvement.

Tone and Balance
As mentioned previously, the article contains uncited claims which appear biased in favor of the organization. When asked in the talk page, the editor who added the claims argued that they added value and should be kept, especially since removing them might make the article too short. In reality, content should not be added only to add length to an article.

Sources and References
As mentioned previously, some facts were completely uncited. Some of the sources given were acceptable, but others were biased sources, coming straight from the organization's website. As a whole, the article only contained 5 sources, which is not enough considering the topic, in my opinion. Biased and un-reputable sources should be removed, and afterwards unbiased and reputable sources should be added as replacements. If no unbiased and reputable sources can be found, editors should discuss the notability of the organization, and possibly marking the article for deletion.

Organization and writing quality
See "Content" section for recommendation for organization. More detail needs to be added, and more specific sections should be used.

Images and Media
Media was sufficient for the topic. The only media on the page was the organization's logo in the topic summary bar, which was correctly labeled.

Talk Page Discussion
The talk page contained only a few comments, where which consisted of an inadequate edit summary, followed by a disapproving response by another editor, followed by a defense by the original editor. It appears one editor created the article and later made edits, assuming since he was the only editor working on the article, he did not need to sufficiently explain his edits.

Overall impressions
The article included some relevant information about the subject, and the first sentence of the lead section was an acceptable summary of the topic. However, in general, the article was poorly written, lacked detail, and suffered from poorly documented edits. Many of these issues could be fixed by more edits and the addition of more unbiased sources.