User:Alexycorrales/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1
Lead section
 * Article title
 * The Family Book
 * Article Evaluation

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Content
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence includes the book title, publishing date, author, and genre.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The article does not have major sections. However, the lead briefly discusses what the book is about and its reception from the public.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * The article does not provide information past the lead.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is clear and concise.

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Tone and Balance
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content provided is relevant to the topic of the book.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * When looking at the retrieval date from the sources, the content is not up to date. Most of them were accessed in May 2013.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, the article is missing each important subcategory for an article on a children's book i.e. background, plot summary, characters, reception, awards, etc.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, the article deals with LGBTQ+ topics discussed in The Family Book.

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Sources and References
 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, the article is from a neutral point of view. There are not any claims that appear biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No, viewpoints are equally represented. The article includes a sentence discussing why the book has been praised and another sentence detailing why the book has been banned. The viewpoints mentioned are accurately described.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article clearly states multiple facts surrounding the book without attempting to persuade the reader.

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Organization and writing quality
 * 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 written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, each fact is backed by a source. However, multiple links do not work and lead to sites that say "Page Not Found." The sources provided are diverse in authorship, but most of them are taken from various blogs and online articles as opposed to peer-reviewed or scholarly articles.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are not current - each of them was written before 2013 (the editor's access date).
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * The article's working sources are not problematic; however, there are better sources available that may be more reliable and provide more specific information.

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Images and Media Talk page discussion
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The article does not have any noticeable grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article does not provide any information beyond the lead to be broken down into major sections.
 * 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?
 * Yes, the article includes an image of the book's front cover. The image is well-captioned with basic information surrounding the book's publishing, but does not adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The image is placed in a good location - it is visually appealing.

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

Overall impressions
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is little conversation on the talk page for this article. However, a comment was made on the fair use rationale for the image used in the article, and another comment was made regarding suggestions for expanding the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated Stub-Class. It is a part of the Children's Literature, Books, and LGBT Studies WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Although minimal, the article discusses this children's book in a very similar way to the way we discuss banned books in class. It mentions why the book has received positive feedback while also including a sentence as to why some groups challenged the book. We do this often in class; however, we go further in depth on these topics.
 * What is the article's overall status? How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is incomplete. It is extremely underdeveloped.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The sentences provided are clear, concise, relevant, and cited.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by adding more information including plot, history, characters, interpretations, reception, media related to the novel, etc. It also needs additional sources that are reliable with working citation links that lead to or reference the source directly.


 * Sources
 * https://search.proquest.com/docview/1511818054/2DFDF1497B94DD6PQ/1?accountid=11091
 * https://search.proquest.com/docview/2161879818/2DFDF1497B94DD6PQ/7?accountid=11091

Option 2
Lead section
 * Article title
 * It's OK, I'm Wearing Really Big Knickers
 * Article Evaluation

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Content
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence states the book title, publishing date, author, genre, and series the book is apart of.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The article does not have major sections with the exception of the Plot Summary subcategory. The lead does not include any information in relation to the plot summary.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * The information provided in the lead is not present in the rest of the article given its limited nature.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is clear and concise.

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Tone and Balance
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content provided is relevant to the book.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content is not up to date. The source used is from 2002.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, the article is missing each important subcategory for an article on a book i.e. background, characters, reception, awards, etc.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, the article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Sources and References
 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, the article is from a neutral point of view. There are not any claims that appear biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No, viewpoints are equally represented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article merely discusses multiple facts surrounding the novel, and proceeds with a summary of the plot.

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Organization and writing quality
 * 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 written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The article only cites one source from 2002. Multiple sentences are not cited in the lead or addressed again later in the article. The book itself is not cited in the Plot Summary subcategory. The source that is included is a working website.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The source is not current - it is from 2002.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Yes, there are better sources available that would provide in depth information needed for the content of the article.

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Images and Media Talk Page Discussion
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The article does not have any noticeable spelling errors; however, there are some misplaced or missing commas, and sentences that could be restructured.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Besides the plot summary, the article does not provide any information beyond the lead to be broken down into major sections.
 * 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?
 * Yes, the article includes an image of the book's front cover. The image is well-captioned with basic information surrounding the book's publishing.The image is placed in a good location.Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

Overall impressions
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is no discussion taking place on the talk page of this article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated Stub-Class. It is a part of the Novels, Children's Literature, and Women writers WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The Wikipedia article does not discuss the controversy surrounding this novel which is the focus of many of our class discussions on banned/challenged books.
 * What is the article's overall status? How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is incomplete. It is extremely underdeveloped.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The sentences provided are clear, concise, relevant, and mostly cited.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by adding more information including background, characters, interpretations, reception, media related to the novel, etc. This content also requires additional reliable sources.


 * Sources
 * https://search.proquest.com/docview/197176584/215B0DC7D8C74377PQ/15?accountid=11091
 * https://search.proquest.com/docview/211792848/215B0DC7D8C74377PQ/18?accountid=11091

Option 3

 * Article title
 * The Chocolate War
 * Article Evaluation Lead section A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence includes the book title, publishing date, author, and genre.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead address the novel's plot, critical reception, and film adaptation, but does not address awards the author/novel have received.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, the content of the lead are present in follow paragraphs of the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is clear and concise; however, the second sentence is fairly ambiguous. Content A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content provided is relevant to the topic of the book.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The majority of the content is fairly outdated, having been retrieved in 2011, and one from 2005. However, select few sources are more recent from 2017 and 2018.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, the article is missing information in multiple subcategories like Critical Reception, Awards, and Film Adaptation. The article also needs additional subcategories like background and interpretation/literary analysis.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article mentions the graphic, sexual, and violent aspects of the novel but does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Tone and Balance Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, the article is from a neutral point of view. There are not any claims that appear biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No, viewpoints are equally represented. The article includes claims critics have made in support of the book, while also including bad reviews/controversy the book has received.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article clearly states multiple facts surrounding the book without attempting to persuade the reader. Sources and References A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
 * 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 written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Although most of the facts in the article are backed by reliable sources, there are three main pieces of information missing a citation. The sources are diverse in the sense that the information was no retrieved from solely one or two links; however, most of them are from various online newspaper articles/blogs.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of the sources are from 2011 and prior. However, two of the sources are from 2017 and 2018.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Yes, there are some better sources discussing the novel's content and reception that may enhance the article. Organization and writing quality  The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The article does not have any noticeable grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The sections included in the article reflect the major points of the topic; however, the article could benefit by adding more subcategories. The sections Critical Reception and Awards read off as bulleted lists and could possibly be reorganized. Images and Media
 * 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?
 * Yes, the article includes an image of the book's front cover. The image is well-captioned with basic information surrounding the book's publishing, and is placed in a good location. The article adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Talk page discussion The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The majority of conversation taking place behind the scene addresses the controversy surrounding the novel. Multiple editors mention the relevance of including more information that discusses the profane content that his contributed to the banning of this book. Additionally, an editor on the talk page provided significant information about the author and novel background which is not included in the published article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated C-Class. It is a part of the Children's Literature and Novels WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The article and talk page discuss the controversy surrounding The Chocolate War; however, they do not go in much depth in the same manner we analyze novels in class. Overall impressions
 * What is the article's overall status? How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article has a good foundation. It is not complete; however, it is not severely underdeveloped or poorly developed; rather, it is a good starting point.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article has a good lead and plot summary. Each other section provided is relevant to the topic, and there are no significant grammatical errors.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by adding more information to its standing sections, as well as adding more sections like author background or novel background. Its Critical Reception category may also benefit from reorganization. Additionally, the article could use more scholarly and up to date sources.
 * Sources
 * https://search.proquest.com/docview/195572210/fulltext/4D858BCAB669438DPQ/1?accountid=11091
 * https://search.proquest.com/docview/1739211325/B7B81FF64FDD4E4EPQ/2?accountid=11091
 * https://search.proquest.com/docview/237298210/D7DF25043F124F48PQ/2?accountid=11091

Option 4
Lead section
 * Article Title
 * My Brother Sam is Dead
 * Article Evaluation

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Content
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence clearly states the book's title, publishing date, authors, and includes its genre.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead paragraph does not include a brief description of the article's major sections; however, the "Contents" box provides a numbered list of the four headings that follow in the article.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Yes, the "lead" solely includes a few, short sentences surrounding the plot of the book without referencing these points at any point later on in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is too concise. It does not provide an overview of the rest of the article; rather, it is merely a three sentence summary of the plot of the book.

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Tone and Balance
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Although lacking in many areas, the content provided is relevant to the article topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the information provided is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, there is a severe amount of missing content. The article does not include sufficient information surrounding the plot and interpretation, book history, context, reception, and other information that is included in good, or featured, Wikipedia articles on other books.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Sources and References
 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Primarily, the article is from a neutral point of view. However, the editor writes "The book realistically depicts what happened in the American Revolution," and the adverb "realistically" can be viewed as subjective, especially without providing context as to who views the book as a "realistic" depiction of the American Revolution.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * The editor does not include various viewpoints surrounding the topic.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article does not assert any significant bias with intent to favor any given position.

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Organization and writing quality
 * 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 written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Check a few links. Do they work?
 * No, the lead is not cited, and the "In Pop Culture" category is not cited. Although the "Reception" category is cited from the American Library Association (ALA), the links lead to a blank page on their website.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources used are current/up to date.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Yes, the "External Links" category provides a link to Sparknotes; however, more reliable, peer-reviewed articles should be used in place.

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Images and Media Talk page discussion
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is straightforward and easy to read but too concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no apparent grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is well-organized in the sense that it is broken down into sections. However, the sections do not reflect the major points of the topic. There are missing categories like plot overview, characters, interpretation, etc. that should be included in a Wikipedia article surrounding a book.
 * 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?
 * Yes, the article includes one image of the book cover in a clear, organized manner. However, it does not specify which book title this is, as the cover may vary depending on book edition and publication. The image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

Overall impressions
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Most of the recent conversations taking place do not regard the representation of the topic. Rather, they are minor grammatical and citation edits and additions taking place.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is part of the WikiProject Novels. There, it is rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale and Low-Importance on the project's importance scale. It is also part of the WikiProject Children's Literature with a Start-Class rating on the quality scale and Mid-Importance rating on the importance scale.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Although we have not directly discussed this novel in class, it was referenced in discussion posts because it is listed as a banned book. Beyond stating that the novel was "the 27th most challenged book from 2000 to 2009," the article does not include any additional information surrounding the controversy or banning of this book.
 * What is the article's overall status? How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is incomplete. It is extremely underdeveloped.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The information provided is clear, concise, and predominantly neutral.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by adding more information including plot, history, characters, interpretations, reception, media related to the novel, etc. It also needs additional sources that are reliable with working citation links that lead to or reference the source directly.


 * Sources
 * https://search.proquest.com/docview/237286220/91F3A3D54A7B4D0APQ/1?accountid=11091
 * https://search.proquest.com/docview/293174593/91F3A3D54A7B4D0APQ/9?accountid=11091