User:Abair26/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

• Name of article: The Perks of Being a Wallflower
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have learned about this book and the adapted film. I am very interested in the topics and ideas that are brought up in the novel, and it is one of my favorite movies.

Lead

Guiding questions

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

It is not really one sentence, but the first 3 sentences of the lead clearly introduce the topic.

• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes, the Lead lists the main topics that are brought up in the book.

• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, not really. Everything that is mentioned in the Lead is then discussed in more detail later in the article.

• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I think the Lead is very concise and tells you the gist of the novel.

Lead evaluation

Overall, I think the Lead is written very well. It's not too long or overwhelming, and it conveys the main ideas of what the book is about. It also lays out the sections it will discuss later in the article. It is very concise and clearly describes the topic of the article.

Content

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, the content is very relevant to the topic. It talks about all the major parts of the book.

• Is the content up-to-date?

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe it is up-to-date. It details the aftermath of the book, its film adaptation, the awards its won, and its history on being banned. I am not sure if there are any recent revelations about the novel that are not included in the article.

• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

The article is relatively short, but I don't believe that there is any content missing. It covers all of the major sections and there aren't any ideas that come to mind that aren't included.

• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The only underrepresented population that I can think of that is mentioned is gay people. One of the 3 main characters is gay and he has a secret boyfriend. That plot is talked about a good amount, so I think that deals with one of the underrepresented topics.

Content evaluation

While a relatively short article, I think that it has great content and it doesn't really have any gaps or holes. All of the content is relevant to the novel itself, i believe it is up-to-date, there doesn't appear to be any missing information, and it even addresses an underrepresented population in Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral?

I think the article is pretty neutral. Although it addresses controversial topics, they use objective language and don't take a side on the topics.

• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, none of the claims they make appear to be biased.

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I don't think there are any viewpoints that are over or under represented. The majority of the topics they talk about are underrepresented, so shedding light on them doesn't make them overrepresented even though the majority of the article is spent talking about them.

• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, the article does not attempt to persuade you to be in favor of one position.

Tone and balance evaluation

I think the tone and balance is very good and neutral. They don't make any biased claims, they don't over or under represent any viewpoints, and they don't try to persuade you at all to favor one position.

Sources and References

Guiding questions

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

The article uses quotes sometimes, and it cites who said the quote and where it was from. All of the factual information has articles linked to it and the article cites all of it.

• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

The references are very thorough. It is a relatively short article and there are almost 50 sources. I think it reflects lots of the available literature on this novel.

• Are the sources current?

The sources are fairly current. The majority of them are from the 2010s time period, with one reference being from 2000. However, the most recent source is from 2018, so maybe there could be even more recent references included.

• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

The sources are pretty much all written by different authors. I think this is very good because the spectrum is diverse.

• Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, all of the links I've clicked on work.

Sources and references evaluation

I think the article did a very good job of providing sources and references. Facts and quotes were cited where needed and the references were very thorough. All of the sources are within the past 10 years, with one exception, and all of the links work. The sources are from a diverse spectrum of authors that tries to include marginalized individuals. One improvement could be to find more recent sources to include since the most recent is from 2018.

Organization

Guiding questions

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

I think the article is well-written because it is very concise, clear, and easy to read.

• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I did not see any spelling or noticeable grammatical errors. There could be grammatical errors that are beyond my scope of knowing, but from reading it myself I didn't notice any.

• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I think the organization is good with it broken down into useful sections. I think there should be another section added dedicated to the serious issues that are dealt with in this book such as sexuality, drug use, rape, and mental health.

Organization evaluation

Overall, I think the article is well organized. It is concise, clear, easy to read, has no noticeable grammatical or spelling errors, and is broken up into useful sections. I think a section needs to be added that talks about the serious topics I mentioned above.

Images and Media

Guiding questions

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

There are only 5 images in the article, but I think they have a positive influence on the article. One is the book cover, another is of the author, and the last 3 are of the actors in the film adaptation.

• Are images well-captioned?

Yes, I think the images are captioned very effectively.

• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

The images adhere to the Wikipedia copyright regulations because they are in the public domain.

• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes, they are visually appealing and are placed in good spots in the article.

The Images and media evaluation

I think the images used in the article are well captioned, visually appealing, adhere to regulations, and enhance the article itself. I think there should be more images added to the Plot section to help visualize what is going on.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There are lots of conversations going on in the talk page. They are about book censorship, musical references, corrections, criticisms, characters, themes, false claims, the plot, and the film.

• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is rated GA-class. It is part of WikiProject Novels, WikiProject Pennsylvania, WikiProject Pittsburgh, WikiProject LGBT studies, and WikiProject Children's literature.

• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

We haven't really talked about this topic specifically, but some of the topics we've mentioned in class are relevant to this novel. LGBT topics, children's literature, and censorship are all talked about similarly to how we talked about them in class.

Talk page evaluation

The talk page is very busy and there are lots of conversations going on. Virtually every topic related to this book and article is mentioned in the talk page. This article is rated fairly high and is part of a good amount of WikiProjects.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status?

Overall, I'd say the article has a pretty high status. The article fared well in all of the topics evaluated above, and it is rated highly by Wikipedia's quality scale.

• What are the article's strengths?

The strengths of the article is its very concise and informative lead and the neutral tone.

• How can the article be improved?

The article can be improved by including more recent sources and adding more information dedicated to the serious topics brought up (ie. sexuality, drug use, rape, mental health).

• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

I think the article is pretty complete besides the improvements I mentioned in the previous question. It is well-developed and is continuing to be worked on by many, many people according to the talk page.

Overall evaluation

I think the article has a very good overall evaluation. It has a good status, is rated highly, has lots of strengths, and is well-developed. There are some improvements, however, that I think can really help to make the article even better.

Optional activity

• Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~

• Link to feedback: