User:Aguil2/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: Little Red Riding Hood (1997 film)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article because it is part of an assignment in class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the lead included names, dates, and facts.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The major sections are only written in the contents section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the lead mentions that the film was inspired by, or is similar to earlier versions of this story. The article does not touch on this.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise in nature, however, some details I feel are more appropriate to be left in the supporting paragraphs. I would have liked a short paragraph on the inspiration for the piece instead of it being just a single sentence in the lead.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Before my current classmate fixed something, the last update was in March of 2019. Before that, the other edits were from past students in a Seminar class, except for a few from 2006-2013 when this article was first published. Overall, the article is kind of up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think the page would be much better if more details were written. On the other hand, Wikipedia pages are meant to just display the facts, so adding more details would take away from the true facts. The content there already belongs and is appropriate to the subject.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Overall, I think more history on the film would have benefited the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article is neutral. The goal was to clearly inform base-line information on the film itself.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims appear heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All viewpoints are represented well.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it seems as if the article is very neutral in trying to communicate the ideas.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The facts are backed up by what it looks like reliable sources. IMDB and BFI are both knowledgable sites when it comes to anything film. The other source seems like it comes from a blog which usually portray opinionated pieces.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources used are mostly numbers and names which don't add much to the table when it comes to content.
 * Are the sources current? The sources don't seem very current; one link doesn't work, others are from old award shows and the last one seems fairly updated.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There were three different sources used to write the article. One source occupied three out of the five sources. In this case, I would have liked more diversity.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? One link did not work and that was https://www.mayastarling.com/little-red-riding-hood-moral-warnings-and-sexual-implications/. Others worked fine.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is clear and easy to read. My only concern is that there are quite some sophisticated vocabulary words in here that can be tricky for the readers trying to understand. These words include, androgynous and anthropomorphized. While we can easily find the definitions for these words, they still make us have to do an extra step when trying to digest the piece.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? The titles of the second mention, in the first sentence, of LRRH should be in quotation marks, not italicized. I also believe that there should be the word 'to' before the word 'manage' in the second paragraph of the plot section. This same sentence is a run-on sentence which needs revision.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is broken down into three informative sections. All the important aspects of work are shown here.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the article has a picture of the film poster.
 * Are images well-captioned? The only image is a film poster and the caption is subpar. I wish it included a date or even who it was designed by.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, the image adheres to the regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the image is above the list of contributors. When you open the page, your eyes are drawn to the top right side because of the poster and I believe that it is appealing.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? One of the most recent conversations is about the line relating to communication between the cat and Little Red. The question asked was quite sophisticated and made a lot of sense. The question ultimately was asking how did the cat warn her if the general language was hard to understand. A question like this can benefit the article because it can then make all points make sense in regards to the true stroy.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as a start-class which means the page is still developing and incomplete. This page seems like it was apart of a WikiProject because years ago a large group of people each edited and contributed to the development.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedia is much more straightforward. In class, we analyze further and really dive into the film to understand the subjective intentions.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The articles overall status is incomplete.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article is strong in the aspect of recognizing the awards and contributors to the film.
 * How can the article be improved? More facts on the inspiration, history, popularity in other countries, and more details on the characters would make the article a lot better.
 * 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 a little underdeveloped. I say this because there are areas where more information could be added.

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: Talk:Little Red Riding Hood (1997 film)