User:Stevenzhao22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

AK-47

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I am a big firearm fan and everything about classic weapons interests me. It is also related to the Cold War Science class since this rifle is designed shortly after WWII, and was mass produced and distributed around the world. During the Cold War era, the Soviet Union and its allies are largely equipped with this rifle, and it remains the popular assault rifle in the world. My first impression of this article is it has a lot of subsections on specific topics, one can easily find what they are looking for by clicking on the table of content. Another thing is that this has a lot of information about the history, design, modification, ammo, production, users, what conflicts it was involved in, and many other extended information.

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 includes a overview of the article topic, although it does not mention all the information listed in the table of content, it does a good job of describing what the topic is concisely. The content of the article is very good, it sticks to the topic, and even beyond what the lead represented. the content is also up to date, recorded the use of this weapon in the most recent conflicts and new variants designed lately. The tone of the article is very neutral because it is talking about an object not an event or person, so the author could describe it in a neutral tone without bias. Even though most of the information are provided, I think the article should include the reasons why this weapon is so closely associated with extremists and insurgency forces. The sources are well cited and credible, and all the links works. There are many sources coming from another language, so I cannot check those, but from the other sources it looks very good. The writing quality is decent, with no visible spelling or grammatical errors. There are less pictures than I expected, because the author talked a lot about the weapon and ammo variants and modifications, but there are not enough images to show what they look like. In the talk page, I can see a few changes being made, but not many discussion overall since the author did a good job composing the article at the first place. Overall, the article is very good and informative without any bias, it could be improved with more images showing the other variants of this weapon.