User:SpencerVinsonASUB/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
I have chosen the Artists Music Guild for my article evaluation.

I chose this article because music is something that I've always been very passionate about. I've never heard of the AMG, but when I glanced at the title and looked over the page I felt like I could probably learn something useful about it.

The Lead of the article includes the backstory of the Artists Music Guild and keeps tight to the article. I don't necessarily see anything that is conflicting for the article it's self. It also includes a brief description of the articles major sections. The Lead was concise and straight to the point about what the article will be covering.

The articles content stays relevant to the topic and is up to date as far as April of 2018. There are a couple concerns with the article containing cites from self published sources but this topic might not have the most biased articles written about them.

While the article has self published sources, the content seems neutral. There aren't any claims that are heavily biased or viewpoints that are neither overrepresented or underrepresented. The article mostly pulls facts from meetings that were held with the AMG so I believe that might be a reason the article was recommended for improvement.

The facts are not all backed up by a reliable secondary source, only some single ones are able to be backed up because they're cited by meetings and documents that AMG themselves provided. Some sources are current, some date a few years back and a few of the links don't work. But a lot of the sources cite back to the original article.

In my opinion, the article is well written, easy to read and understand especially for someone who wouldn't know what the AMG was if they were to stumble across the page. The articles broken down into sections History, Leadership, Executive board of directors, Board of directors, Artistic board of directors, Mentoring, Heritage Awards (with subsections), References and External links.

The only media that the article includes is the logo of AMG. The images included don't have captions either. With there being almost no media about AMG the cite isn't very appealing to someone who's looking for what it looks like inside the AMG.

The talk page has no conversations going on with this topic. The article was rated C, and it's within the scope of WikiProject Companies and rated Low-Importance on the projects importance scale. And unfortunately we haven't been able to talk about this topic in class.

My overall impressions are that if the article had a couple more images it would be more visually appealing. The article was easy to read and well written, and maybe if it had more sources that weren't from AMG themselves, then the article would improve substantially.The article has been developed what seems to be kind of quickly. Addressing key points for the company and having it's own content as it's "fact checker" seems to be how they went about creating the page.