User:Gizelleg25/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

As Above, So Below

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because of my love of horror movies. When I first watched the film it made me want to check out the place myself (the tourist part, not the illegal dangerous part).

Evaluate the article

The beginning paragraph seems clean and precise to the topic. It gives a brief description of the film and also facts about the film's inspiration as well as box office value. There did not seem to be any useless information added to the beginning.

I feel that the plot portion is a tad too detailed and long and would be considered too much of a spoiler for those who have not seen it. Some of the sentences also seem to be incomplete or ungrammatical. I usually do not read much into movie articles on Wiki but from what I am reading, the literal whole movie is describes scene by scene. The cast portion does seem relevant and accurate. In the filming portion there does seem to be a good amount of useful or important facts about the filming process.

All of the links and references seem to be working. At first there was a link that I was questioning that had "crimsons peak" to it but once clicking into the page I realized that there was also information about the movie AASB in that short article. There also is added links towards that bottom that provide ratings for the film which is also helpful for the movie critic.

As I have mentioned before the portion that really bugs me is the plot. The way it was written seems as if you are trying to explain the film to a friend. People do not go to wikipedia to read as if they were chatting with friends, they want a clean and speedy summary of the film. The writer should have also Italicized some phrases from the film in addition to their added quotes such as "abandon all hope, ye who enter here".

For the image and media portion there was not much added. The only photo added was the cover of the film. There should have been images added such as the stone that was the main point of the plot (to obtain it). I am not too sure if they have the correct copyright in adding the image.

In the talk page there only seems to be two negative additions towards the article, everything else seems to be helpful information. There does not seem to be any back and forth conversation with the editors, it all seems balanced.

The overall article does not seem too bad, everything seems correct and up to date. Going back to the talk page, everyone seemed to catch any misinformation of the film. The only issue I would have would be the plot, some word formats, and maybe adding more images.

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)