User:0diego0/sandbox

"The Memphis Horns" Evaluation

Lead Section

The lead section for the article I chose makes up the majority of the article. The first sentence very clearly explains that they were a famous horn section on a fairly popular record label. It's mentioned that the horn section was featured on many records of varying artists, but they aren't all available on the article. There is a discography section in the article, but it only features the records that the horn section itself put out under their name.

Content

The content of the article is very informative overall, but it doesn't mention how the horn section began. It has information on who they've worked with and the years that they did, but doesn't include the origin of the horn section or when they began. While all the information in the article is up to date and relates to the horn section, there seem to be some blank spots. For example, how and when the sextet was reduced to a duo is not mentioned in the article.

Tone and Balance

The article is written entirely from a neutral point of view since it doesn't feature any issues or controversies. However, there may have been a possible fallout within the group when it was starting out that just wasn't mentioned at all in the article. It does mention that it was originally a sextet that over time became a duo, but has no information on what happened between those two points in time.

Sources and References

There is a template message at the top of the article that states more citations are needed to verify some of the information. There are five total sources in the references section, and one of them is cited four times in the article. That same source happens to be from a book, so the farthest you can get to it is the Wikipedia page it takes you to about it. Three of the links work, but they only offer about a paragraph of information. The other link takes you to a website where you have to search for the article that was cited. There is one external link and it doesn't work. It directs you to a completely unrelated website.

Organization and Writing Quality

I found it very easy to follow along with the content in the article. All the big moments in the history of the horn section were spread out and in chronological order. There were no grammar or sentence structure errors. There were only 3 sections apart from the lead section, references section, and external links section. There was a section about their previous members, a section with a list of their discography, and a section with two selected recordings of theirs.

Images and Media

There are no images of any sort on the article. However, there is a box at the top right of the article that states their country they started in, their genre of music, their labels, other musicians they've worked with, and the two main members of the group.

Talk Page Discussion

There are only three entries on the talk page, and two of them relate to issues I myself came across. They ask about the past lineups of the group, and when they started out. There isn't any talk about changes being proposed, but rather questions they want answered. This article is rated as Stub-Class, under WikiProject Biography, and WikiProject Musicians.

Overall Impressions

This article can use a good amount of work. It needs more reliable sources, more information, and images/media. The good thing about this article is that it does offer a good general idea of who the horn section consisted of, and worked with. I believe the article is underdeveloped because it has good content, but not enough. I would say it's between 70%-80% complete since it's missing additional details.