User:BigAndLarge/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I needed to choose a topic of inquiry for my WikiProject assignment and since I watch a lot of movies I thought that choosing an article about one might fit. I've already seen Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, so that cuts out a portion of the work I may have to do when analyzing the subject. Another reason would be the unusually lengthy talk page on the article that seems to be a pointer to its underlying problems. The movie is intensely cerebral so I wouldn't expect anything less from discussions about the plot and chronological order

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * 1) Clear and concise introductory sentence
 * 2) Brief description of the film and its aspects but there is no preliminary description of the articles sections. (there is, however, a "contents" section)

Content


 * 1) Most of the content seems to be adequately related to the film and somewhat up to date (some discussion on the talk page is almost 20 years old by now)
 * 2) Both the analysis and music sections are lacking in descriptions and even have a disclaimer stating more work needs to be done on this section. There are also some sections where focus is unequally placed on specific sections, such as the plot section being nearly a third of the size of any of the other sections

Tone and Balance


 * 1) Save for a few odd choices of adjective (like the unsubstantiated claim for the films "cult following") when relating to the film's plot

Sources and References


 * 1) Regarding sources to general information, most are backed up by a footnote save for a few that need to be edited and probably require a source to substantiate their claim
 * 2) The time period of the sources is all over the place, a large amount come from around the movies release (around 20 years ago, 2004 and so on), but quite a few come from only 2 years ago or 4 years ago. Editing and better organization would do wonders for this page
 * 3) I'm sure I can find some better suited sources that aren't so dated by now to use on the few gaps that do stand out and are in need of clarification, such as some of the casting and discussion of the plot
 * 4) Save for one I had trouble opening, the links all seem to be working despite their various ages and multitude of sources

Organization and Writing Quality


 * 1) Upon first quick overview, I didn't notice any glaring spelling mistakes however a more intense comb over may expose more considering how populated the talk page for the article is

Images and Media


 * 1) Only 3 images appear in the article and they are all at the very start of the article and bunched together. While I believe getting into image choice and placement may be veering too far into semantics, I may decide later there are some much needed changes; for now they are good enough

Talk Page Discussion


 * 1) The talk page has lots of lengthy discussion deciding how the movie's admittedly complex plot should be handled. The end result seems to be an aggressively neutral stance that doesn't waste time with analysis and simply tries to lay it out in the most comprehensible way. While I believe this has led to a neutral and unbiased stance, I question if this has actually led to the plot of the film being explained in a way that encompasses all its nuances
 * 2) The article has been rated as a level-5 vital article and is C-Class, it has previously been the topic of another student editor

Overall impressions: I think that this article has extremely fleshed out points with good writing but there is a huge contrast between sections. Some sections are expansive while others barely take up a sentence. If anything I think there is a balancing problem that could be somewhat easily settled to put this nearly 20 year old article to rest. Its strengths come in the Release and Production segments while the Analysis and Music sections pail in comparison. Id say that the article is most like 2/3rds complete, ignoring some sourcing problems.