User:Astzzzz/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: (link) Talk:Studio Ghibli
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. [Personally, I watched the animations from Studio Ghibli as a child, but I do not know much about the story behind the animations. So, hopefully, I will learn more about this studio after reading]

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? [I do think this sentence concisely and clearly describes the article's topic as telling and explaining the basic information about Studio Ghibli. Since the lead is to tell people what is studio Ghibli, the introductory sentence does serve this purpose.]
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? [Maybe not. I think authors generally introduce the Studio Ghibli, its famous firms, and the founders. But in the content below, there are far more information beyond the simple introduce, such as characters in the film, general history, and so on.]
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? [No, things mentioned has been mentioned again.]
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? [It is very concise and gives the most basic information about Studio Ghibli.]

Lead evaluation
I think it is the Lead that we will see in the wikipedia which follows the basic structure by giving the most general background about Studio Ghibli. It mentions important people and famous films in the Studio Ghibli and the external link can give people other information related. It is a lead that can make people recall or understand what is the Studio Ghibli.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? [Yes, it gives the information about Studio Ghibli step by step. The name and history is firstly introduced, and then the information related to other countries is also provided. Besides the information about the company itself, the content then turns to the information related to films themselves.]
 * Is the content up-to-date? [Yes, it both contains the history part and the distribution rights part which is more up-to-date.]
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? [No, they all have the link to specific topics.]
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? [I think there are no information that specifically deal with the Wikipedia's equity gap nor historically underrepresented groups in this article. It mentions the distribution rights but I think it does not relate to anything asked here.]

Content evaluation
The content is short and includes every title and subtitles in the article. It is well organized in an order that moves from the inner to the outer. It gives people a guideline about the information written below and give people the ability to choose which part they want to know.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? [Yes, the words use are objective and neutral without personal emotion.]
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? [No, the whole article is more like telling facts about Studio Ghibli. I can not see anything that is biased to specific groups.]
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? [No, in fact, there are not many viewpoints but more about the history and facts.]
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? [No. I do not think there are any position or standings in the article.]

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral and objective without any personal emotion or interests. And since the article is more like fact-based, there are no standings in the article, and certainly, writers do not have positions nor interests. So, the article is balanced in its way.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? [Yes, almost every sentence has a citation mark that gives the secondary source of information. At the end of the article, there are 80 citations.]
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? [Yes. The sources vary in types. They include published books, academic articles, films, and even the twitter.]
 * Are the sources current? [The sources about books, academic articles, and twitter range from 2010 to 2020. So, I think they are up-to-date.]
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? [Yes, the citations show that the information are coming from various people with different nationality. I do not think there are any historically marginalized individuals included in these topics.]
 * Check a few links. Do they work? [Yes, they are working perfectly.]

Sources and references evaluation
Even though this article is not long, there are 80 external sources included to back up the facts and information they provided. You can even click some term to go to another wiki-page to learn more. The sources are diverse and include various types and are from various authors.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? [Yes.]
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? [No, at least I have not seen as I read.]
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? [Yes. It have the large topic and small topics that further explains the situation about distribution rights. And for the history part, the history is written chronological.]

Organization evaluation
The whole article is organized in a a certain way that follows the content. And under each section, the author is telling the facts either based on the time order or the order of how things have developed.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? [Yes, there are 4 images in the article. One about the Ghibli, and another three are related to the important people in the Ghibli.]
 * Are images well-captioned? [No really, it only has names under the image.]
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? [Yes.]
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? [No.The images are shown in a serious way. And the images are chosen are not appealing.]

Images and media evaluation
I think the author could add more images about the studio, films, and characters which will certainly make the article more appealing and will lead people to know more the studio and the work they created.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? [They talk a lot about various topics such as the accuracy of certain term, the up-to-date relationship between Disney and Ghibli, the formats of films shown, and so on.]
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? [C-Class. This is a maintenance category, used for maintenance of the Wikipedia project. It belongs to wikiProject Companies, WikiProject Japan/ Business and economy/ Tokyo, WikiProject Anime and manga/ Studio Ghibli, WikiProject Animation/ Asian/ Films, WikiProject Film/ Filmmaking/ Japanese.]


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? [I think the Wikipedia discusses this topic in a way to tell the basic information about the Studio Ghibli. So the information provided is rather basic and all about facts as well as history. But the topics we discuss focus more on what is standing behind the idea. For example, what stands behind the samurai and why it is so widely-spread. One is more in the surface level, and one focuses more about the thinking behind the phenomenon.]

Talk page evaluation
The talk page clearly shows how the authors discuss the question they think might be wrong or not precise in the article. We can clearly learn more after reading the talk page and find out what they think is more controversial.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? [Since it is a C-class article and also relates many other WikiProjects, I think it has a fair good overall status.]
 * What are the article's strengths? [I think the article gives many information about the studio itself which is a part that many people do not know about.]
 * How can the article be improved? [Maybe more image, stories behind the production, films they produced, and so on, should be included. I think the information it provided is not enough for us to understand Studio Ghibli.]
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? [Yes, it has a great completeness. And all the sub sections has been well-developed in a way that tells the basic information.]

Overall evaluation
Overall, it is a good article that gives basic information. And for the parts mentioned in the content, they are well-developed and clearly organized. But, authors can include more information or areas about Studio Ghibli in the article.

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: