User:Tlporter3/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) New Bedford Whaling Museum

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 since it is a GLAM institution, one that I am familiar with growing up in that area. As a smaller regional museum, I was interested in evaluating the quality of its article. My first impression was that it had more information than I would have expected for a lesser-known museum.

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.)

Lead Section: The lead does include a concise and sufficient overview of the topic, answering the "what is is" question upfront. The lead mentions the brief history of the organization and its exhibitions, which are both expanded on in their own sections later. The lead has a few direct quotes from the museum's website that would need to be addressed and reworded to meet copyright/plagiarism rules.

Content: The content is relevant and includes the history of the museum and information about its exhibits, but the information appears to be outdated in at least a few areas. There is a section on publications, but that section is not clear at first glance if these are publications sponsored by the museum or if the museum is mentioned in them. It's a large section that requires more context to be relevant to the user. There's a lot of information that comes across as random facts; the article has poor flow.

Tone and Balance: The tone is neutral and remains factual throughout the article, not expressing or favoring certain viewpoints.

Sources: The sources are dates and almost entirely from one source, the museum the article is about. This article would benefit from an update and diversification of its sources. Many of the links to outside sources do not work. The links to other Wikipedia articles do work and are a solid addition to the article.

Organization: Writing is concise, with no apparent grammatical errors. The article is logically organized based on lead but does have a section called "publications" that appears out of place I spoke on earlier.

Images: Images are relevant to the article and well captioned. Appear to follow guidelines; all images appear to be open-use images.

Talk Page: This is a very limited talk page, with only one comment. Given the smaller effort behind the article, I expect it to have less content on its talk page as well. Also, it does not appear to be updated regularly. It is a part of the WikiProject Museums.

Overall: STUB. The article provides a decent introduction to the museum, and the lead is of good quality. The article as a whole is underdeveloped and would greatly benefit from updated information and re-doing of sources.