User:Stubilan/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Crazy Rich Asians (film)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose the Wikipedia page about Crazy Rich Asians to evaluate because it is one of my all time favorite films. As well, when browsing articles to choose to edit for our project coming up, I noticed that it had an excellent rating on Wikipedia's search tool. I think this article will help get a good understanding of what an exemplary Wikipedia article looks like so when I go to edit mine for our project, I have something to compare to.

My preliminary impression of the article (before I found its rating in Wikipedia's search tool) was that the article is well organized, detailed, and factual. There were many adjacent Wikipedia pages linked to key words used throughout the article. For example, each actor mentioned in the article has their own Wikipedia pages hyperlinked to their names.

Lead section
The first sentence of the introductory section does a perfect job of summing up what the film is, who created it, when it originated, and when it premiered--as well as noting the important accomplishments the film has attained. My only note is that in the first paragraph, the second sentence is grammatically incorrect (missing 'are') and just lists key actors.

Content
All of the content is up-to-date and relevant to the topic. There is no content that strays from the subject of the film. The article is a direct example of addressing a topic related to historically underrepresented populations--reasoning: Crazy Rich Asians is a film that has been recognized for being the first major Hollywood film to modernly represent Asians of multiple cultures and have an all Asian cast.

Tone and Balance
Article remains neutral in tone throughout it's entirety with correctly cited sources attached to claims/statements. The article sums up the process of production and the order of events in which they took place. Both lead actors in the film and minor actors have mentions in the article. There is no persuasion.

Sources and References
The sources used in the article are mostly interviews, articles, and reviews from major news outlets and certified entertainment news companies. Statements made in the critical response section are cited with at least two sources all claiming the same information. Given the topic is a film and not a traditional academic subject, the sources aren't scholarly, however, are presented in a way that conveys the general conclusions from information provided by entertainment news sources.

All the links work.

Organization and Writing Quality
The article is clear and concise with no run-on or fluffed up sentences. Save for the grammatical error in the introductory section, there are no others. All sub-headings correspond to the information provided.

Images and Media
Images are provided in certain sections to enhance understanding of the subject. For example, pictures and links of locations shot in the film are provided when discussing how the production team found them.

Talk page discussion
The talk page for the article consists of editors that discuss improvements for the page. Some are discussions about how to properly address the ethnicity of someone who is Asian (i.e. there are people talking about how 'American-born Chinese' is a racial slur). There was a lot of editing done within the review section--at one point there was two review sections, but got edited and removed. Peoples passion for the film are prevalent and there are few arguments regarding how some information should be presented, but are done in a formal manner.

Overall impressions
The article's status is GA (Good Article). The article does a great job of describing the production process of the film and how it was received in a neutral stance. I would the assess the article as well-developed given there isn't much more I could think of to add to it content-wise. It's complete.