User:Shadowminer 55/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Studio Ghibli

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
As a Japanese studies Major, I was curious to see what Category:C-Class Asian animation articles there was. I was quite surprised to see that Studio Ghibli was listed among them, since I'd assume an article listed as Top-important in Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga and Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation would get some nice attention.

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
Overall good lead in my personal opinion.

The lead does mention the mascot without there being a corresponding section later in the article though. Could possibly be added into the Name section by simply expanding it to "Name and Logo."

The lead is fairly concise.

Does not include a brief description of the major sections. Could use some sentences describing its Distribution Rights corresponding the same named section.

There are two other things mentioned in the lead that are missing from the article which I describe below.

Content
Regarding missing content, the lead mentions Studio Ghibi's "strong presence in the animation industry." This is something I believe true and important to cover on an article about Studio Ghibli. Unfortunately, there is no corresponding section, an "influence" section would be a good addition to the article.

Also mentioned in the lead is "Their work has been well-received by audiences and recognized with numerous awards." The article does not have and could use an awards page. But in addition, a "reception" section would be useful for talking about audiences' reaction to Studio Ghibli.

Possibly an "Influence and Reception" section with subsections "Animation Industry" and "Audiences" would be good for integrating what I've mentioned above.

The content appears at first glance to be up to date.

The content is indeed relevant.

Tone and Balance
Article appears neutral. Studio Ghibli requires some further research to confirm neutrality, though as noted, this section needs expansion anyway.

Claims do not obviously appear heavily biased.

Viewpoints appear to match common viewpoints.

Any minority or fringe viewpoints for the current article would be in Studio Ghibli, which needs expanding first.

No the article does not appear to attempt any persuasion.

Organization and writing quality
Overall, I'd say that the article is well written, and well organized. The only problem area appears at a glace to be the expansion needed Styles and themes section. The break down of sections is done well, with the Works section appropriately showing Films and TV series (of most interest and pertinence) with other works included in a longer and separate article List of Studio Ghibli works.

Images and Media
The usage of images does indeed enhance understanding, and the side box of those heading Studio Ghibli in the History section is appreciated and adds some visual appeal.

Talk page discussion
The conversations hint at the work done on the films table for the article, and the work done in that section to help readers and keep inaccurate info from being reintroduced with a "technically Studio Ghibli films" section mentioning films many may think as Studio Ghibli films.

The article is part of several WikiProjects, and has appearingly gone through several reviews and has failed to meet the requirements to become a B-class article.

Overall impressions
Overall I think the work currently written is pretty well done, however it seems that the article needs some more references, along with the fact that the sections I noted above would be good for completeness.