User:Studentuser65210/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbear_(musician)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is something that really interests me. Blackbear is one of my favorite artists, and I have always been curious about his past life and how he worked up to so much fame. I have been listening to him since I was a teenager, so I have a moderate background about him already. At first glance, all the information looks correct and up to date.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it does. If I didn’t know who Blackbear was I would know by just the initial sentence.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, I can see that they are going to outline everything about him. From his formative years to his awards and nominations.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No, I went through it and everything matched the listed table of contents.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? I would say very concise.An artist doesn’t need that much information, and I am glad I didn’t feel bombarded with too many facts.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, everything here talks about Blackbear. If it didn’t mention his name explicitly, then it talked about his family, wife and kids, or more background information. This was all necessary to learn more about him and paint the picture as to who he is and how he got so successful.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, the last post was made in 2021 about his recent release “Misery Lake”.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No, this article does not. It is about a musical artist and didn’t go deeper than that.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes, the authors seem to not mention if they like his music or him as an artist or not.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?No.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Not really, the only thing mentioned was that he didn’t grow up wealthy or wasn’t born into the music industry.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, they are all backed up. A lot of them go to personal interviews with black bear or information from his record company.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes.


 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, I had no issues following along. In fact, it was a fun read for me and I enjoyed it.It didn’t sound mundane or anything.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, I saw a few commas and semicolons that were placed and not needed.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is very organized. It is easy to read, and I was able to jump to sections when I wanted more information and I didn’t feel like I was losing out.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes, there were a bunch of him when he was younger and him now. You can really see how he’s grown through time,


 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, there was a thorough description underneath each.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.  The author could have used a few more for sure,but that might have turned into redundancy.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? I couldn’t find any.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? No.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

It doesn’t really. In class, we talked about how Wikipedia can be a good starting ground for information. If I came in not knowing anything about him, I feel like I would have gotten a good idea about him. There were so many links and other references to further my research, just like how we talked about in class that Wikipedia articles have to further our own knowledge.

Overall impressions

 * What are the article's strengths? Strengths are going into detail ( like about how former years), and not overwhelming the reader. The authors did a great job of doing that and giving just enough information, but not giving too much not needed detail.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Very well developed. His song “u love u” was quite literally just released, and I didn't expect to find information about that. It is all very up to date, which I think is more important when discussing popular artists. There are even facts about his record deal with Columbia records from August. The fact that it is so current is what made this article nearly perfect, and that way I can get more of an understanding.

Feedback from instructor on article evaluation
Nice work! The only thing I can flag for you is that I think you have misunderstood the question "Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such." It's not speaking to weather the subject of the article, in this case Blackbear is a minority, but whether written content in the article represents consensus or minority/fringe views about the subject of the article. So, for example, the Wikipedia climate change page should describe the scientific belief that the Earth's climate is changing, and that these changes are partially a result of human behaviors, as the consensus scientific opinion, and any arguments otherwise as fringe/minority opinions. Come talk to me if you want to discuss, this subject raises some important questions. ~