User:Asofiav25/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Don't F**k with Cats: Hunting an Internet Killer

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I watched this documentary series on Netflix a couple years ago and I thought it was really fascinating, and I was curious if someone made a page about the series itself. I also believe that it's an experience to watch, and interesting to watch how intricate these people get online about finding out who made the original video that started this whole case in the first place.

Evaluate the article
I feel like the Lead Section has a clear cut kind of describing line that states what this specific Wiki Page is about. There's not a separate description of the main ideas mentioned on this page so I feel like we could add some more information in that aspect, but it's the general bare minimum currently. I'd say that everything in the lead is present in the article (like you said it should be), I'd say it's pretty consistent and brief.

The content is up to date and relevant I'd say because it's not an actively changing topic, but the use of technology to solve mysteries/cases is still a thing people do today, so with that included in the article, it relates to current stories. I feel like the only important facts that are missing, are the knowledge that you learn about once you watch the documentary, and the Wikipedian might have not included it so that viewers are able to learn new things and not have the whole story spoon-fed to the audience. This specific article deals with Wiki Project Television, which focuses on the collection of articles on TV programs. This article works with two other campaigns including Wiki Project Animal Rights and Wiki Project Crime.

From what I am reading in the article, it seems very neutral, in the way that it's pretty factual the whole way through. It's not discussing why the specific group of people who solved the case did it, and their personal feelings, it's just stating that "this is what happened, and here are the effects of what Luka Magnotta did". I don't think any of the information is overrepresented or underrepresented, a lot of the information is there and I want to say it's all pretty much recognized. I personally don't feel like this article is trying to persuade me one way versus another, and I say that because this is a page on a documentary where all of the information is authentic and extremely accurate for such an in depth case.

I don't personally love the secondary sources that are provided for this article because a lot of them are "Deadline Hollywood" and "ScreenRant" which to me, have always looked like paparazzi type sources that are providing the information because it's something that has to do with fame and publicity, not like a factual, academic background. More of the trusted articles are from Rotten Tomatoes, and BAFTA, both great sources for television and film, so I can understand why those were used for this Wiki article. There was also a Canadian news network that produced another article that was used to produce this specific wiki article. The links do work, but I haven't found many that were written by previously marginalized authors, or if they have, I didn't recognize them all that well.

This section will be brief because this wiki page is clear, concise, and broken down into simple sections that get the information across effectively. As a new user of Wikipedia, it was very easy to find what I was looking for, and I think that's also because it's not a huge page, its there and informative. I actually really like the writing of this Wiki author and from what I have read, it does not look like there are any spelling or grammatical errors.

There is only one picture that is provided on this Wiki page and that is the promotional poster for this docuseries. I appreciate that it's up at the top of the page and I can clearly identify what the docuseries will be about, and what the vibe of this docuseries is, it shows me another side of this docuseries outside of the narrative of it.

On this side of things, I cannot see any ratings of this specific article, but I do see one conversation and the tabs about Wiki Projects. I think I mentioned them above because I thought that's what the equity projects meant by. If so, they were Wiki Project Television, Wiki Project Animal Rights, and Wiki Project Crime. This is discussed in a much more unbiased and objective compared to how we as individuals interact about topics they're more knowledge about. The only conversation that is visible is that someone mentioned that the John Green that is linked on the article, is the author of The Fault In Our Stars, when in reality, this is a different John Green and they happen to have the same name.