User:Whiskers8000/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The Barbarous Coast

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 was interested in the name and didn't know anything about it. The article was interesting and short enough that I can understand the book fairly well.

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 looks very good. It's only one paragraph long, but the article is also very short, with most of it being taken up by the book summary, so it doesn't need to be longer than one paragraph. I'd say the article provides an even distribution of information to each section and doesn't leave anything important out. The article is neutral tone and I didn't feel persuaded to believe one thing or another. The links work and seem reliable. There don't seem to be any better sources available. The article is organized in a pretty good way, the summary is first followed by the background and themes. I think most people would use the article to see a quick summary of the book, which means the summary should be up first after the lead like it is. The background and themes are better at the bottom because not as many people are going to want to look at those. It was easy to read and I didn't see any grammatical or spelling errors. The two pictures included are a picture of the original book cover and a picture of Malibu, where the book is set. I think these are good pictures that enhance a readers understanding of the article. The talk page was empty, with only one message about some deletions made by an inexperienced user who has made many previous errors being undone. It is part of the Wikiproject Novels. It is a C-class article. I think it has good organization and is concise. The article could probably be improved by separating the topic of background and themes into two different topics. The article is somewhere between underdeveloped (I'm sure there are more themes present in the book that haven't been mentioned) and well-developed. If there aren't any more themes in the book, then it's good.