User:AidanLane2/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: Into the Wild (film)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

It was one of the articles recommended for my course and Into the Wild is one of my favorite films.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * For the most part the lead is good. The introductory sentence does its job extremely well describing the article's topic and the rest of the lead gives an overview of what is going to be contained in the rest of the article. The lead does include information technically not in the article anywhere else but it is mainly overview information so it is not a big issue. Overall the lead is up to Wikipedia standards and I'd say the most complete part of the article.


 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * None of the content is irrelevant to the topic, and from what I can tell, nothing in the article is outdated, but there is a severe lack of content in some of the sections. The production section is particularly bad, only having information on the location for two of the locations in the movie: Alaska, and the Emory graduation. All the information about the other scenes and about other aspects of production are missing. The accolades section is the only section that looks complete; most other sections need at least a little additional info for them to be up to Wikipedia's standards. The article doesn't deal with any underrepresented populations so Wikipedia's equity gaps are not a problem.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is completely neutral in both content and tone. There aren't any claims anywhere in the article so there isn't any way for claims to be over or underrepresented. One section that should be added to the article that would allow for there to be a disparity between the representation of viewpoints is a section on analysis of the film. Obviously this section would only take analysis from Wikipedia standard courses, but this is one area where certain views could be overrepresented or underrepresented.


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

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * The overwhelming majority of the sources in this article are news sources with some archives sprinkled in. Some of theses sources are cited after info like award nominations, which is fine, but the fact that there are no peer reviewed sources present and that the closest thing to a scholarly source is the University of Alaska Museum front page is a problem. The reliance of news sources in the article isn't because of need, as there are plenty of other sources on the topic, so they absolutely do not represent the available literature on the topic. I'm not sure why but most of the sources link to the web archive meaning that the articles are no longer on the internet so that makes be a little bit suspicious of the quality of the sources listed.


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The organization of the article is pretty good. It is easy to read for the most part. The accolades section bein in the middle looks a little weird but it doesn't impede reading as much as it looks like it would, although for visual sake and also a little bit for ease of reading it should be moved to the bottom. The article is too concise in my opinion, leaving out information that, while it is not necessary for understanding the Into the Wild film, should be included for the article to meet the Wikipedia standard.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * The article only includes one image, which was the poster for the movie release. The image is captioned correctly but I don't think it adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, saying in the caption "The poster art copyright is believed to belong to the distributor of the film, Paramount Vantage, the publisher of the film or the graphic artist", but it is possible that the article has approval to use the image. As there is only one image, the poster photo at the top of the box on the right, which is a standard picture and picture location for film articles, there isn't really a way for the photos to be laid out in a bad way. However, there should definitely be more photos in the article, at the very least a sky shot of the bus in nature.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * There are relevant conversations going on in the talk pages, mostly towards improving the article. An interpretation section (basically the same as the analysis section I mentioned adding) seems to be in the works but as of right now it is only one interpretation. The article is rated a C, which I believe to be an accurate rating, and it is both within the scope of WikiProject Alaska and WikiProject Film. There is also a section explaining why some of the links go to the Web Archive but not all of them, and even given the explanation I still think that better sources can be found than news sources only found in the Web Archive.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * My overall impression of the article is that it is okay for someone to read to get a general idea of what the Into the Wild film is, but it doesn't go beyond that. Almost every section needs more information, with some sections having a severe lack. The article also needs to have a better mix of sources, including more scholarly articles instead of just archives and news sources. The articles is up to date though and does not include any false information so to that extent it is doing well. I would say that the article falls into the category of underdeveloped, or maybe slightly better, but definitely not up to Wikipedia standards and therefore needs to be improved.


 * 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?

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: