User:Toastyalmonds/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Taylor Swift

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am a huge fan of Taylor Swift (as are millions of other people), so I knew the page would be pretty developed from the work of hundreds, if not thousands, of contributors. Additionally, since Taylor Swift is arguably the biggest pop star on Earth, I knew it would be a highly detailed page with a lot of information. This is important because Taylor Swift's page is probably one of Wikipedia's more trafficked pages, and is thus probably an example of a good Wikipedia page. My preliminary impression of this page is that it is extensive, a lot of research has been done on it, and it is meticulously detailed.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is very efficient at introducing Taylor Swift, her background, and her most significant achievements.

The content is well-written and covers a white woman, so it helps to cover Wikipedia's gender gap but not racial gap. It is up-to-date, relevant, and well-researched.

The page isn't overtly biased in favor or against Taylor Swift as a person, but when looking objectively at her many awards, it's hard not to admire how much she's accomplished.

There are a lot of sources, there are very recent updates (ie the AMAs she won this past weekend are already on the Wikipedia page), and the sources are all relatively credible. I'm doubtful that there are many peer-reviewed articles on Taylor Swift's personal life or awards history, so I don't think it's concerning that there aren't many of those cited. The links work.

The article is well-written and mostly easy to read, but there's so much that it's inevitable for it to have some sections that seem winded or overly detailed. It is neatly broken into subsections, including every "era" (album release and associated tour), philanthropy, and impact.

There are images, and they do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright rules because they're public domain images. They are tastefully placed so that every few paragraphs has a visual aid, along with a picture of each era.

The discussions are about small changes in wording ("identifies as" vs "is"), updating sources when new numbers come in, disagreement over how brief the lead paragraph should be, etc. There's very courteous dialogue and lots of contributors working together on the smallest of details on this page.

Overall, this is a very good article. It's still a work in progress, especially because Taylor herself is very active, but it was insightful to get to read through the discussions and see how other contributors wrote such a polished, ever-developing article.