User:Seascript/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Sharebon

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It was on the list of articles to practice evaluating for class. Also, I find information on the different genres interesting.

Evaluate the article
The article's lead section is brief and concise, but does not contain much information or overview of the main contents of the rest of the article. As for content, it is fairly general, and does not include much new information except for the information on the Early, Middle, and Late periods, in which it goes into sufficient detail. It seems to be lacking the physical characteristics of the sharebon; a comparison would be useful in this article to others, such as yomihon, or the other genres listed at the bottom of the page. The sources in the bibliography section could not be considered recent (there are three listed), although the one from 2007 could be called relatively recent. There does not seem to be any bias in the article; it seems be to entirely neutral.

All of the links seem to work, and lead to the places they are supposed to. However, the references are few, and it seems like a lot more of the information should be attached to a reference. The article could also use pictures, since it has none. As for being included in a WikiProject, it is a part of WikiProject Japan and WikiProject Literature, which aim to improve those areas of Wikipedia specifically. For WikiProject, is is rated as Start-class, mid-importance. WikiProject Literature rates it as start-class, WikiProject Sexology and sexuality rates it as start-class and low-importance, while WikiProject Women's History rates it as start-class and low-importance. The latter two projects are only listed lower down on the page, while, on the other hand, the section that discusses WikiProject Japan and WikiProject Literature specifically claim the article has not yet been rated.

Overall, this article seems to have useful information, but it mostly seems lacking in several areas. A noticeable strength is the part that discusses the three periods of the sharebon, while an addition of images of the sharebon and a description of the physical characteristics in particular would improve the article greatly. It is somewhere in the range of underdeveloped to poorly developed. What is a part of the article seems decently put together.