User talk:Bmkler23/Evaluate an Article

Feedback on Article Evaluation
This is a very good article evaluation. You cover most of criteria that Wikipedia suggests you consider when evaluating an article. As you note, the article is only "start-class," so there is lots of room for expansion and improvement. You have identified a number of ways that the content could be improved, and you do an especially good job of considering what should be in the lead section.

Note that there are actually NO sources cited at all. The external links at the bottom are just that: external links. They aren't necessarily the sources of information for the existing content. And as you note, there are no inline citations at all. You could definitely do a lot to improve this article -- it would be a good one to do for the Wikipedia project. But you'd need to read some of the waulking/milling song readings that are on the Gaelic song reading list.

I have to say that I personally don't know how it helps to understand waulking if we know where a waulking was portrayed in popular media. It would be better simply to direct people to relevant websites or videos. I think the "in media" section is largely irrelevant. Moreover, I'm not sure why people are directed to "puirt-a-beul" in the "see also section." Even directing people to a particular waulking song seems odd to me. There are literally hundreds of waulking songs -- why is this one waulking song entry worth visiting? I'm not sure it even warrants being an entry. Does it pass the "notability" test that Wikipedia mentions in the training sessions? You could consider suggesting that both the "in media" and "see also" sections could be eliminated or at least seriously overhauled.

One spelling note: "brief" is spelled "i" before "e." You may find it helpful to learn this spelling rule: "i before e except after c."

Overall, great work! CBFraoch (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)