User:WillKBeatty/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
America 3000

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I've selected this article because of the very poor collection of information on the article, and the article fits within my courses requirements.

Evaluate the article
The title section of the film is very bare, and is lacking a 'brief overview' as needed in the lead section. The introductory sentence, while concise about the title of the film and it's genre, doesn't go any further to explain what the film may be about. The content within the article is relevant to the topic, but I would not consider it as 'Up to date' as it is lacking much more information about the film. While the article has the very bare bones of the film, ultimately all that is listed is the 'Premise' and the 'Cast' and not much else. The article has not been touched in a very long time, and has been reviewed in the 'Talk Page' by an anonymous user as 'Easily the worst written page on Wikipedia, needs attention from someone who cares.' three years ago. The article's sources are only a link to TV Guide, and a few external links to IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. None of the material is referenced or cited other than TV Guide's commentary on the film in the short reception page. The article written, but I wouldn't qualify it as good or bad writing. It feels very bare-bones, and could use some significant work. The images and media are well captioned, and are formatted adequately. The talk page is incredibly dry except for the aforementioned post by the anonymous user about how awful the page is in its current state.

Overall, the article is a solid D rating I'd say. It's a good starting off point but could use some significant labor to bring it up to a sparkling rating. That being said, this film isn't incredibly important or relevant so it is not in need of a massive overhaul or incredibly detailed writing job. I wouldn't qualify anything within the article as a strength besides it's listing of cast, and almost every section of the article an be improved. The article is written well, but is underdeveloped and could use further expansion on plot, reception, etc.