User:Whitflick/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
National Postal Museum

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I have been fascinated with this museum since I visited it several years ago, and I believe it is an undervalued institution of the Smithsonian as well as the USPS being an undervalued part of our society. My first impression of the article is that it is successful at providing a well-cited, basic overview of the institution, although there are some significant gaps in its coverage.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is very concise, but only contains an overview of some of the article's major sections. Additionally, information about the museum's establishment is not mentioned again throughout the article. The lead sentence could be reworked to be more descriptive, and the section overall may be too concise at the moment.

All content on the page is relevant and up to date, with several sources that appear to have been added this year based on retrieval dates. There are gaps in the content such as the circumstances for its establishment and how it is managed (e.g. budget and staff members), to name a couple. However, this is clearly a low priority page since many WikiProjects classify it as start-class and low-importance as well as it having little to no activity on the Talk page.

The article is neutral, which is the top policy mentioned on the Talk page, and this is very important to the editors as there is a section on the page about past edits which were promotional and not neutral. The vast majority of facts in the article are supported by citations, and many of the citations have been added this year, suggesting substantial recent additions to the page. Almost all of the citations come from the National Postal Museum's own website or the Smithsonian website, so there could be more diversity in this regard.

Overall, the article is well-written and organized, but it is currently underdeveloped and could use significant work to fill in content gaps that are present. It is successful at providing a very basic overview of the museum, but with more information, it would be much stronger.