User:Aina2001/Evaluate an Article

Daddy's Roommate
I've chosen to evaluate this article because, at first sight, it is clear that there is an imbalance in the content of each section. There is more space dedicated to reviews of the book and the controversy it led to than about the content of the book itself.

Lead
Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The article does include an introductory sentence that effectively describes the article topic. However, the Lead lacks a description of the major sections that will be touched upon in the article. Apart from that, the lead is concise and does not include information that is not present in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic but it is evidently missing more information about the book itself. Whereas most books have sections related to the plot, the characters, theme, style, and other aspects, Daddy's Roommate only has a brief summary of the book and then focuses only on the public reception of the book. Although the controversy the book led to is important, it should not be the center of the article.

The content could be updated to include how has the perspective on the book changed or not over the last 15 years.

The article does address topics related to historically underrepresented populations/topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
At first, it can be said that the article is neutral; however, when it moves towards the section "controversy", it only touches upon the perspective of people who condemned the book Although this is not necessarily wrong, it is important that the opinions of those who supported the book and who actually saw value in the book are also present in the article to give a more balanced overview about the topic. In short, the controversy had two sides, those who didn't find the book "appropriate" for children and those who did, the latter also had their reasons for it and they deserve equal space in the article. Nevertheless, the article maintains a neutral tone and doesn't seem to favor any side, regardless of how much space is given to each of them.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
It seems that most of the article is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information except for the summary that lacks references whatsoever. The sources are not thorough, however; there are certainly more sources available on the topic in question. Though some sources were accessed recently, most of the sources are from at least 7 years ago. This is mostly because of the date of publication of the article; yet, current sources could be used to continue to track the controversy caused by the book. Finally, the sources do cover a diverse spectrum of authors, including voices form the LGBTQ+ community. All links I checked effectively worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written. It is concise, clear and easy to read. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors. Nonetheless, it is in the organization where I find the main issue of the article: the unequal distribution of content among sections. The largest part of the article focuses on the controversy caused by the book rather than on the book itself. Therefore, rather than giving the reader a general, literary evaluation of the book, it gives an account of the impact its release had and the larger social issue of challenged books in the US, which, although relevant, should not be the center of the article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The article only has one image, the cover of the book, which I believe is relevant and enhances the understanding of the topic. It is well-captioned and adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The image is also laid our in a visually appealing way.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The conversations in the talk page are mainly proposed revisions and an alert regarding the image used. The article was nominated to as a "Language and literature good article" but it did not meet the required criteria. There are suggestions to improve it. Besides, the article is part of several WikiProjects: "Children's literature", "Books", "LGBT studies", "United States", and "Human rights". All projects rated it as B-Class and ranging from low to middle importance.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
I believe, in general, the article is clear, concise and easy to follow. It gives a fear summary of the plot and an account of the controversy the book caused. However, an important issue I perceive is the imbalance between sections (the genre section consists of only two short lines) and the lack of information regarding literary aspects of the book. I think this stood out to me because the article is named and should be focus on the book; otherwise, a "Controversy on the Book Daddy's Roommate" could be a more accurate name. Furthermore, this diminishes the importance of the book on itself and portrays it as if it was worth reading mainly because of the controversy it generated.

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: