User:Snake in boots/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Appalachian stereotypes

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose it because I am interested in the development and impact of stereotypes. It's an important topic because again, stereotypes really do have an impact. And understanding the development of stereotypes can help us counteract them. My first impression of the article was that it was short.

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.)

The lead section is one whole sentence long. It does identify the topic, but the sentence itself is not very clear. It doesn't go into important aspects of the topic, or the sections of the article.

While it does cover the most important aspects of the topic, those aspects are given very little context. Like, it goes over a brief history of Appalachia, but it's not organized very well, and the author tends to just say things and not really explain them at all. I think that and the lack of context counts as missing content. But the really big thing for me is that it's last section is about Appalachian stereotypes in pop culture, but it doesn't really go into how pop culture---especially media---has perpetuated those stereotypes. The content isn't exactly not up to date, the main thing there is that there's just a lot of examples missing from popular media. It is about a historically underrepresented population and topic though, which is great.

I's not entirely neutral. Most of the opinions in there are from sources like professors and stuff, but the article is definitely telling the reader that the stereotypes are harmful (which is true but still an opinion I think). The author says something about an "incorrect theory" which isn't very neutral. It could be an actually disproven theory though, but even then, I'm pretty sure it'd be good to add the opposite view or something. And there are a couple just straight up opinions in there too.

There's a really solid amount of sources that I'd say cover the topic pretty well. Not all of the facts are backed up or cited though. There are definitely some pretty good, peer-reviewed articles on JSTOR the author could've drawn from.

The organization could be improved, which I think also goes back into the lack of context a bit. Instead of having just an overview of the history of Appalachia, there could've been a brief overview of the region that included the history. Without that context it seem like random stuff is just being said, in turn making it feel disorganized, and harder to read.

There are a couple pictures, but there up in the corner, and I didn't really clock them until I was looking for images. The captions are fine, but I wouldn't really say they add a whole lot to the article.

The talk page is fairly busy. Most of the conversations are about how to make the article flow better and easier to read. There are also a lot of suggestions for putting in links and stuff to provide extra information and make stuff clearer. The article is rated C-class on several WikiProjects.

The article could definitely be improved. It lays a pretty good foundation for the topic, but it doesn't feel complete. I've pretty much already addressed the parts that aren't great about them and talked about what could be done to improve it.