User:Amart624/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Spring Breakers

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Often before watching a film, audiences browse online to find articles that provide an in-depth glance at what the film has to offer; without giving too much away. Film reviews persuade audiences to either screen or not screen the movie. Reviews also give away too much of the -movie, even the “spoiler-free” ones. So film articles that offer a closer look into the movie's plot, production, and cast allow audiences to familiarize themselves with the film. As well as make their own decision on whether or not to watch the movie. Wikipedia’s article on the film “Spring Breakers” accomplishes just that. I was delighted with how well the article delivered accurate, relevant, and factual information about the movie. All while maintaining a neutral tone that opens the reader's mind to free will.

Evaluate the article
The article's lead section informs readers about the film's central aesthetics and history. It's a short introduction to the movie that offers an accurate depiction of the major plot and alludes to the film's deeper meaning. By doing so the article manages to stray away from criticizing the film and acknowledging the director's perspective. The lead section gives readers that “heads up” that is concise and to the point. It creates a freeway where the reader can drive at ease while also being able to glance at the billboards (content) they pass.

Because the article is meant to inform readers of everything about the film, its content is divided into categories that overview the plot, casting, production, box office, critical acclaim, and so on. The content of the article is neatly organized, making it easy to follow along. All topics described above are relevant to the article. The plot, casting, filming, and production categories all serve a purpose that presents relevant information. I can criticize the article and say that these sections should be combined into one, but the article works in favor of these sub-categories. Without them, the article would be hard to follow and unorganized. The tone of the article is also kept neutral. There is no bias or persuasive language that alludes to criticism or praise. The article does a fantastic job of describing what the film is meant to do and avoids implementing any opinionated sentences. The article does offer media images of the film that give the readers a glance at the aesthetic and cinematography. These images enhance the reader's perception and understanding of the article while also agreeing with Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

The article’s sources and references are a cluster of critic reviews and box office logistics. Most of these references are online media outlets. This makes sense because the article isn't delving into concepts or topics that would need to be credited by scholarly journals or peer-reviewed essays.

To my surprise, the talk page is a bit quiet and immature. The only engaging discussion was on the genre of the film where users argued whether or not to classify the film as a “comedy”, Most users included references that would support the classification of comedy, but these references fall short and are unreliable.

Overall the article exceeded my expectations. It was neatly organized and divided into sections so it would be easy to follow. The language was also mature and informative and there was no bias circulating. I was delighted to find such a detailed and informative article that offers the description of a film accurately and in neutrality. The article's biggest strength is that it does not shy away from mentioning the multiple perspectives the media had to say about the film. It gives the article the balance that every piece of writing desperately needs.