User:Alexycorrales/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
My Brother Sam Is Dead

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I was intrigued as to why the book is banned in some schools. I also found that the article lacked information about the book and it's history which makes it important to evaluate. At first glance, I found the article to be extremely short with few sentences used as a summary, and a few additional sentences regarding the book's reception and use in pop culture.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

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 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.

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?
 * 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.

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?
 * 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.

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?
 * 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.

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?
 * 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.

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 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.

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?
 * 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.

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 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.