User:Ericclipkaa/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article[edit]

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

Name of article: Skippyjon Jones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skippyjon_Jones)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate:
- Article, while developed, offers opportunity for further detail to be included, specifically regarding specific texts and of the subsequent controversies that followed its publication.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes. Introduction is concise and direct. Introduces central text and pertinent info that will be explored further in the article.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- In simple terms, the introductory section quickly addresses most of the major sections of the article, but not all. For example, no reference to 'Theatre Production' in lead portion.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- All information described in the Lead is referenced in greater detail throughout the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Concise.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Seeing that the article deals with banned and challenged literature, editors have done well to ensure that all intersecting aspects of the subject are addressed.
Is the content up-to-date?
- Yes, info as recent as last year is presented. Content appears to be up to date at the moment.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Perhaps summaries of individual books within the series and specific problems that arise from each might be helpful. But for the most part, necessary content is present and addressed in the article.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes, there is a neutral point of view.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No, doesn't appear to be any underlying agenda behind the article. Use of 'opponents' or 'critics' may help to affirm this.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Would prefer to see more on how the author of the series has defended themselves from criticism. In the original text, this is only briefly mentioned. What are her counterarguments to these critical claims?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, again has a neutral's point of view.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Sources appear to be reliable, and include credible publications such as, for instance, The New York Times.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Abundance of sources used.
Are the sources current?
- Yes, sources and content are relatively current and up to date.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, article is well-written and addresses larger issues of tokenism and representation, giving it an academic appeal.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- None (if any, they are minor and not noticeable).
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, article structured into sections with major themes.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- No images. Addition of images would be useful and enhance quality of article.
Are images well-captioned?
- No images.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- No images.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- No images.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- No conversations in the Talk page.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- Cannot find rating.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- I believe when we discuss the topic in class, we have an inherent bias that may come across -- I know I do. The language of the Wikipedia page was much less charged and neutral, although more time could have been spent addressing counterarguments in an effort to appear more neutral.

What is the article's overall status?
- Can't find an official status (probably need more refreshing on mechanics of the site).
What are the article's strengths?
- Well-developed. Grammar and syntax strong. Analysis section is particularly well-developed. Article is concise throughout and discusses major points in a brief but effective manner.
- How can the article be improved?
  - More detail; include images with reference links; as mentioned above, providing summaries and analysis of specific text within the Skippy series.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- Generally well-developed.

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 — ~~~~