User:Willrembert360/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I will be evaluating Occupy Wall Street.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is C-Class and covers a relevant topic. Since it is a topic I'm a little unfamiliar with, I figured I'd not only learn the skills needed to properly evaluate an article in this exercise, but also learn about a new topic at the same time.

Evaluate the article
This article discusses the Occupy Wall Street movement of the 2010's, which started amidst growing concerns of corporate greed, economic inequality, and so-called "big finance" in the wake of the Great Recession of 2008. This is described in the article's lead section, providing the reader with a brief description of the event. It also discusses the branching movements caused by Occupy Wall Street, as well as its political origins and all subsequent activity.

I find that articles that discuss such politically-charged topics can sometimes have difficulty maintaining neutrality and discuss the political origins of said topic at the same time, but I'm glad to say that's not the case here. The article explores the movement's supposed roots in socialist thought and as a negative reception to extreme capitalism to help the viewer better understand the purpose of the movement. All political topics and discussion are handled with the due respect that they deserve. I actually found that the article's range of topics is quite broad; very little is left out.

The article's Talk page includes a handful of interesting user comments, though none of which have been implemented into the article yet. I also noticed a thread where a so-called Marisa Holmes, who wrote a book and a feature film about Occupy Wall Street, said that the movement was more anarchistic in nature rather than socialist. I was unable to confirm the validity of her statement / sources as I didn't see enough information in the thread. There may not be enough valid information given by these comments to warrant a change, or Wikipedia's moderation process may simply still be in effect. I may check back on the article and the Talk page at a later time to see what becomes of these suggestions!

Otherwise, I think the article is well-formatted and readable. All topics are organized into neat sections—including the aforementioned lead section, origins, and background—which also have their own subsections. Everything is neatly organized and there are relevant images placed in many locations to give readers a visual element. There is a broad collection of verified sources for the content in the article, and I find that the structure of the article is equally sound as its handling of the subject matter (though some specific sources are in dispute in the Talk page, which I don't wish to add my own opinion to without proper knowledge.)

Overall, a well-made article.