User talk:DeadlineBreaking/Evaluate an Article

Feedback on Article Evaluation
Overall, I think that you've done an excellent job evaluating this article. You helpfully provide a link to the article you evaluated, and you followed the suggested criteria for evaluating an article. You have appropriately identified some problems, including that there is relatively little content and it all comes from a single source that it is not currently accessible. Note, however, that the problem is not that the article cited hasn't been published or isn't available online but that the URL is not correct and could be fixed. You can see the article referenced here. Importantly, this "article" is not a proper journal article but a review of a book. A review only summarizes some very basic information in a book. It would be far better to cite the book itself -- something that you could do (although we might have to request that the book be brought to Beinn Mhàbu from the CBU library).

I do feel that you contradicted yourself in an important way. Under "main topics," you write, "The article does not have that much information on it, being as it only drew from one reference." But under "overall," you write, "It does a good job of describing Cape Breton fiddling." Can it do a good job of describing Cape Breton fiddling if there isn't that much information? Maybe you meant to say that the information that's provided is helpful but is limited?

You also say that the article is neutral, but I note that this statement appears: "Although fiddling has changed considerably since this time in Scotland, it is widely held[who?] that the tradition of Scottish fiddle music has been better preserved in Cape Breton." I think that is a very provocative statement! I wonder whether Scottish fiddlers would agree! The statement has been made to seem neutral by using the phrase "it is widely held." But someone quite rightly asks who thinks this? Anyone can say that something "is widely held" but where is the evidence?

My last comment has to do with the lists in the article, which you don't address. I'm not a big fan of lists in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia articles are encyclopedia entries. They should give general information supported by references that readers can access if they want more information. How does it help us to understand the Cape Breton fiddle to know a long list of tune books that fiddlers use or have published? It would be better to summarize some of the common trends (e.g., Cape Breton fiddlers regularly draw on Scottish tune collections such as X, Y, and Z. At the same time, a number of collections of Cape Breton compositions have been published, such as A, B, and C).

In general, though, I think you've done a good job of assessing this article! CBFraoch (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)