User:Ajusa100/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: Moe (slang)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose to evaluate this article because there was an assigned reading related to it, and because it is related to how others will perceive Japan. It also seemed to be something that has been blown out of proportion in the "Love in 2D" article, so I was curious to see how the Wikipedia Article portrayed it.

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 lead does have a nice (two sentence) introduction that defines the term properly and covers the different aspects of moe.

The lead does include a brief discussion (around one sentence) for each major section of the article, although it isn't explicit about which section the discussion refers to.

The lead claims that moe has been used to refer to affection to any subject, but I was unable to find that later in the article. All of the other points made seemed to be from the article itself.

It is quite concise, a quick two paragraphs on definition and related discussion on the subject.

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. There is very little missing information. As far as I can tell, the content is pretty up to date. Moe as a term has only become a thing in the last 20 years, and there are citations as of 2016 as well which is recent. I would say that there could be more images/content on the page as examples, as the only image is that of a young girls, and the examples that are given are all from the early 2000s. The article doesn't deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, as it addresses a term related to otaku culture.

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
The article does appear to be mostly definitions and the opinionated portions are confined within the "Commentary" section. The sexual attraction section is a little problematic, as it is contradictory. I am not sure why that is, but there are two competing claims that are biased towards the sides of "otaku are a problem" and "being an otaku is okay".

As with an article on Moe, I would say that the non otaku view points are underrepresented. There is a bit on how large the industry is commercially, but less on if the term is commonplace in other parts of Japan. I don't think the article really attempts to persuade, it appears to be pretty well balanced overall.

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
There are quite a few secondary sources that are referenced, including an economic paper, multiple journalistic article, and a few books. Most of the statements have citations to the relevant materials that they are from. I would say that the sources are fairly thorough - there is a good mix of viewpoints and sources referenced for this article. I don't think that the sources are current enough - the otaku market has more than doubled since the early 2000s (and it has spread throughout the world, including in the US). Almost all of the sources that are referenced are from the mid 2000s, but there are only a few from the 2010s. The sources are predominantly written by Japanese males, although there are a few by white males as well. My guess is that there aren't a whole lot of females doing research or publishing on the term "moe", rather than there being a gender bias in what to cite.

Most of the links I checked do work, but they were in Japanese so I wasn't really sure if the content on a website was correct.

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 and organized for a discussion of a use of terminology. There were no spelling or grammatical errors that I saw.

I do think that the "Origins" section could have been broken up into sections rather than being a huge block of text.

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, which claims to be an example of a character that would elicit feelings of moe. The image does adhere to the copyright regulations (public domain). It is placed near the top, which is good for an article about otaku culture. I don't know if this image is good enough to enhance understanding of the topic, seeing as moe is used when talking about characters, and there is not a great explanation of why this image could be considered "moe".

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
There are quite a few conversations, including discussing the meaning of certain phrases in Japanese, considering a rewrite of the page, and fixing erroneous redirects (such as waifu). The article is rated C-class and it is part of three WikiProjects. Wikipedia discusses the topic from a more historical and literal perspective. In class, we discussed moe culture based on an article intended for a western audience, but the Wikipedia talk page can include people who actually understand Japanese trying to add to the article.

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 would say that the article is pretty good overall at describing the term and the related history. It is very good with factual information and all of the different conjectures related to the origin of Moe. Its weaker points include the lack of clear images and recent examples or controversy, which could all be improved. I would say that the article is well developed, but that it could use more recent work with different authors for the sources.

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: