User:AGraceP/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.


 * The Heroes of Olympus: (The Heroes of Olympus)
 * I thought it would be appropriate to evaluate an article on a children's/young adult series, and thought this one might be getting a little less attention than its predecessor, the Percy Jackson series.

Lead

 * The lead has good information about the series, but it is a bit inconsistent and disjointed. It mentions particular details about certain books, but not others. It also contains spoilers, which I would probably change. Also rather than pointing out how the Percy Jackson series "detailed the life of modern-day Greek demigods[,]" I would mention how the Heroes of Olympus series does the same. It does a pretty good job of summarizes the article's major sections; I believe the reception is usually not mentioned in the lead. The lead is very concise. One inconsistency that the lead begins is the spelling of Gaea, who is referred to as Gaia for the rest of the article, but in the books is referred to as Gaea.

Content

 * All the content of the article is relevant to the topic. The initial plot section is a bit redundant. Is it biased to say which characters are important? Should it just say that some are more featured than others? Although it makes it clear that the Trials of Apollo is a follow up series, perhaps there could be mention of shared characters to relate as to why there is mention of it on the Heroes of Olympus page. I believe all the content is up to date, but the reception section basically only mentions the reception of the first book, The Lost Hero. Also, in publishing history it mentions the release date of only one of the graphic novel adaptations.

Tone and Balance

 * The article is very neutral. There aren't many points to be biased on except for the reception of the series, and the article mentions a variety of reactions and reviews.

Sources and References

 * All the facts in the article are backed up by sources, most of which are reliable. However, there are several sources that I might question the reliability of. However, to my knowledge none of the information presented is incorrect. I believe the sources are current, all the links I checked were still available.

Organization

 * The article is a bit choppy within paragraphs but does maintain its concision. There are no grammatical errors that I saw and the only spelling error was the inconsistency I mentioned previously, between Gaea and Gaia. The sections for the most part do make sense; some of the information in the inspiration and origin section doesn't exactly seem properly placed, but I couldn't think of a better section for them either.

Images and Media

 * The article contains almost no images, so I would definitely add more. I'm not sure if many of the images available for this series are copyrighted. However, the two images are well-captioned, well-placed, and in line with Wikipedia's regulations.

Checking the talk page

 * This is a C-Class article and it part of a WikiProject. There are a few good conversations happening about the content, all of which are very constructive.

Overall impressions

 * This is certainly a good start to an article. Overall I just think it needs to be more detailed, consistent, and well sourced. The information that is in the article is good, it just needs more. Also none of the inconsistencies provide incorrect information, but they can be a bit distracting to the reader.