User:Adunham19/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Film

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I'm interested and knowledgable in the topic (I studied film theory and history in undergrad). Additionally, I noticed that the article had a note that some citations needed verification, indicating that it's an article in need of evaluation.

Lead Section
This article has a lengthy opening section that is a bit unfocused. The opening sentence summarizes film very well as it is all encompassing and concise. The first three paragraphs are strong. I don't think the fourth or fifth paragraphs need to be included at all as these topics are alluded to elsewhere in the lead section and are explained in detail in their appropriate sections. The lead section does not include a brief description of all the sections in the article. Particularly, information about the invention of film, the film industry, and film distribution could afford to be more included in the lead. I think that this section could benefit from more concise and focused writing. Overall, this section is over-detailed in certain areas, while also lacking some main key points about the topic.

Content
All of the content in this article is relevant. That said, this article could benefit from more information about modern film. Under the history section, the sub-section for 1960s and later is a measly 4 sentences long. That is 60 years of film history in 4 sentences. It is not sufficient. Additionally, this section lumps international New Wave movements together in a way that does not respect each individual movements' significance or difference from one another. This mention of New Wave movements is also missing some key movements. Most notably, Korean New Wave, which is the newest of said movements, and is the most relevant to popular culture today. For example, this movement is in part lead by director Bong Joon-ho, who is one of the most notable directors of this century. This sub-section also fails to mention the invention of the Blockbuster, which is one of the most influential moments of modern film history. There is also no mention of the current documentary filmmaking boom that we are in.

The section on film theory could benefit from some mention of Zero Degree Style. This is a standard style of filmmaking where the audience is a fly-on-the wall and there is little to no reference to the camera. The opposite of this would be breaking the fourth wall. It seems simple, but as modern movie-watchers, we take this element of filmmaking for granted. Additionally, it is a key element of film theory that is important to understand when analyzing film from a more theorized angle.

Additionally, the industry and distribution sections are lacking. They fail to mention the very early methods of distribution, such as carnival attractions and nickelodeons and they don't mention more modern distribution methods, such as streaming. That said, there is a main article for film distribution that is linked in this section, but this article is also lacking and could use some additions. Overall, international film industry and distribution information is lacking, especially in regard to non-capitalist industries. There is no reference to Soviet industry or distribution. I'd also like to note that in the additional information tab next to this section,

The terminology section could benefit from more organization and subheads. It is quite detailed and robust and I wouldn't add much. That being said, in the sub-section of terminology defining cast and crew, the article uses Woody Allen as an example of someone being a part of the cast and crew of a film. There are SEVERAL examples of this (Quentin Tarantino, M. Night Shyamalan come to mind immediately). In considering Wikipedia's equity gaps, I think part of this includes not over-representing harmful figures, such as Woody Allen. I would personally replace Woody Allen with a different example as it would serve the same purpose without over-saturating the site with links to pedophiles' Wikipedia pages.

The education and propaganda section is lacking. Firstly, there is only one sentence on educational films and it barely gives a definition of what those are. Secondly, it does not do a good job distinguishing educational films from propaganda films. Next, the propoganda section focuses exclusively on German and Soviet cinema. This are notable examples that should most definitely be included, but this section could be stronger if it went into detail about the use of film and propaganda during WWII in general, which is the most significant period of film propaganda in the history of world cinema. It was not just Germany and USSR that were producing propaganda films, Italy, Japan, and the U.S. were also producing propaganda films at that time. This section also fails to note Hollywood's role in the rise of propaganda film, which I think is problematic and indicative of some bias. Additionally, there is no mention of the 1960s Cultural Revolution in China, which is regarded by film historians as one of the most intense instances of government censorship and propaganda in film history. Additionally, this is section includes a very narrow view of propaganda. The last section briefly mentions that this can include less intense political messaging, but it offers no examples and it does not dive into the deeply powerful nature of film, which explains why film propaganda is so popular.

The animation section seems to be underdeveloped, but I am less knowledgeable on this subject so I cannot offer suggestions.

Finally, to close some equity gaps, I think this article could afford to have a section on gender-bias in film and filmmaking.

Tone and Balance
If I had to give the tone and balance of this article a grade it would be a B-. I think the most glaring instance of bias is in the propaganda section, as I detailed above in my content analysis. Additionally, there is a large focus on Western Film (Hollywood and European industries) and I think the section could benefit from some more inclusion of information about Asian, African, Hispanic, and Latin film.

Sources and References
There are a significant number of statements in this article that need citations. The list of sources is incredibly short given the density of this topic, but that's not surprising considering there are missing citations and my long list of suggested additions. That said the sources that are there are reliable. I am familiar with several of them, from my previous studies, though not all. That said, these are not very up-to-date. The most recent source is from 2007. This is not surprising considering I noticed that this article is heavily lacking information on modern film. Finally, the links appear to be working for me.

Organization and Writing
This article could benefit from some copywriting. As mentioned above, the terminology section desperately needs subheadings and organization help. Additionally, some of the sentences are clunky, and the lead section is not as concise as it could be, which I went into detail about above.

Images and Media
I dislike how the images in the history section are laid out. They are all on the right-hand side. It's clunky and not appealing to the eye. Additionally, I think there should be an image for the color sub-section of the history section. All of the images are examples of black and white film. Technicolor was invented in the early 1900s. Several of these movies are in the public domain by now. So, I imagine a an image for this sub-section could easily be found.

Also, Terminology, Education and Propaganda, and Production could benefit from images. If the Distribution section were to be expanded, as I recommend, that section could probably also use images.

Talk Page
I see people working on a rating system section in the talk page. I think that this would be a great addition to the article! Especially because the Industry and Distribution sections of the article are lacking. That said, this section draft appears to need a lot of editing and additions. There appears to be a lot of discussion on the editing of this sub-section.

Someone is also working on making this page available in Zulu.

This is a C-rated page, which I would agree with. There is a lot of information that could be added and the article could benefit a lot from copyediting.

Overall
I think that this is a fine article. There are no glaring errors and this is a great outline and start to such a vast and robust topic. This article can benefit from additions, which is unsurprising considering the nature of the topic, and some copyediting. I also think that discussions about gender-bias in film could be beneficial, as well as some more inclusion of international film history and industries. Finally, I think Education and Propaganda section impacts the tone of the article since it does not provide the full history and details of this issue.