User:Aidepikiw3000/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: Thirteen Reasons Why
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have seen the TV adaptation, so I have background information on the content, which should help evaluate accuracy and importance of what is written. Additionally, the censorship of the series evokes conflicting responses.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead mentions awards, which accounts for the section about awards. The lead does not mention reception. Reception of the film constitutes an entire section of the article separate from that of awards. Also does not include information about multiple recipients of tapes, yet the article has a "Characters" section, describing many of the recipients.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? In the lead, it is mentioned that the novel was No.1 on the NYT best sellers list in July 2011, but does not mention this fact again in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead introductory sentence concisely describes the article's topic. The lead includes information from all of the article's sections except for the section regarding "Reception" and Characters." The lead mentions the novel was a No. 1 NYT best seller in July 2011, but does not go into detail in the remainder of the article. The lead is, overall, concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The character section seems to be a result of individual research. Additionally, some of the descriptions of characters make inferences and conclusions about the effects of events on characters that cannot be considered factual.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
The content is relevant and up to date. However, the character section seems to be a result of individual research. Additionally, some of the descriptions of characters make inferences and conclusions about the effects of events on characters that cannot be considered factual. The article is about a mainstream topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article is mostly neutral, but may exhibit some bias in its character descriptions.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is no heavy and blatant bias present.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There seems to be an appropriate representation of viewpoints.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is mostly neutral, but may exhibit some bias in its character descriptions; however, there is not heavy and blatant bias present. There seems to be an appropriate and unbiased representation of viewpoints, specifically in the "Reception" section.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, the character list is not cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, many are news articles about Hollywood, actors/actresses, and film. This is reflective of the available literature, however, because the novel was adapted into a highly viewed television series.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work

Sources and references evaluation
Some self research is evident in the character list and descriptions. The sources are representative of the available literature on the book and are current. The sources are all very mainstream and not representative of any marginalized individuals. The links do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The lead is well written and concise; the character list seems out of place and potentially altogether unnecessary. The difference between the book and TV series section is well placed and necessary given the popularity of the TV series.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not any obvious grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Most of the sections are well placed and relevant. However, as i noted, there may be an irrelevant section.

Organization evaluation
The lead is well written and concise; however, the character list appears to be a product of self research. There are not any obvious grammatical or spelling articles, and most (excluding the character list) of the sections are well placed and relevant.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is one image of the cover of the book. That seems appropriate for any book.
 * Are images well-captioned? The caption is informative.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I would assume they do, as the only image is the book cover.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the cover is placed directly beside the lead.

Images and media evaluation
The only image in the article is the cover of the book, which seems appropriate. The cover's caption is informative and well placed, directly beside the lead.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is some frustration over a debate concerning the characters and their relation to characters in the TV series.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated a start-class and is in WikiProject Novels and WikiProject Children's literature.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedia makes brief note of its negative reception, but doesn't further expand on how challenged the book (and story) really was.

Talk page evaluation
There is some frustration and debate concerning characters and relation to the TV series. The page is rated a start-class and is in WikiProject Novels and WikiProject Children's literature. Wikipedia makes brief note of its negative reception, but doesn't further expand on how challenged the book (and story) really was.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article as a whole is in need of more work.
 * What are the article's strengths? The plot seems proficient and the writing in the lead and throughout is concise and adequate.
 * How can the article be improved? Resolving the discrepancy in opinion between the book's relationship with the TV show is important.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article's completeness is justly described as a start class. It seems like a good start, but is in need of much development.

Overall evaluation
The article as a whole is in need of more work. The plot seems proficient and the writing in the lead and throughout is concise and adequate. Resolving the discrepancy in opinion between the book's relationship with the TV show is important, especially considering the popularity of the TV show and the potential to overshadow distinctions that are made in the book.The article's completeness is justly described as a start class. It seems like a good start, but is in need of much development.

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thirteen_Reasons_Why&action=edit&section=4