User:BilboSwaggins25/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the Annabel Lee article.

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 decided to evaluate this article because I am a great fan of Poe's works, and I thought that it was a shame to see that the quality of the Wikipedia page on one of his most famous works was so poor apparently.

''When I first read the article I could see why. The analysis seemed short and opinionated, and apparently there had been a fight in the talk section about whether or not it was appropriate to cite a friend's homemade YouTube video on the piece.''

 

Such a famous and remarkable poem surely deserves better than this.

comments-np
You write that the analysis section of the article “seem[s] short and opinionated.”  The analysis is certainly short, perhaps indeed too short for this significant poem. Your term “opinionated” suggests that the analysis is not written from a neutral point of view (one of the core principles of Wikipedia), and you’re right that the style of this section does not seem neutral.

My first thought was that the author of this section is summarizing the scholarly sources but not adequately crediting them. But the discussion on the Talk page suggests that one or more editors checked the cited sources and found that the comments here are not justified by those sources. Your analysis is consistent with that conclusion.

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.)

The Lead

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * It's not exactly on topic as it exclusively describes the fact that this is Poe's last complete poem. I feel that it would benefit from mentioning the cultural significance of the work, as well as including the year it was published.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does for the majority, but I feel that the analysis seems opinionated (exemplified in phrases such as "The narrator, who fell in love with Annabel Lee when they were young, has a love for her so strong that even angels are envious. He retains his love for her even after her death." ) and could be organized and written more concisely and eloquently. It also leaves out the adaptations and poetic structure sections in the synopsis.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * It does not, which is good.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead seems to be concise, but includes miscellaneous information while forgetting to include information that should actually be there.

comments-np
You say that the first sentence is not exactly on topic. The first sentence does identify “Annabel Lee” as Poe’s last complete poem, and it’s not out of the question that this fact makes the poem notable. But you may think a different aspect of the poem is more important and should be featured prominently in the lead. If so, how would you revise the first sentence?

You’re right that the structure of the poem is not discussed in the lead; it may be that this topic is not considered one of the article’s major sections (it’s a subsection of Analysis). But Adaptations is a major section, so it may be that, as you suggest, a reference to this topic should be included in the lead.

You cover several crucial points about the article, in particular the problems with the analysis section. The evaluation template suggests other points to consider (for example, sources and writing style).

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * For the most part, yes, it is, however I am strongly inclined to believe that the analysis section is in dire need of reconstruction, as it heavily focuses on thematic comparison to other works by Poe, rather than analysis on the work in and of itself.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The version of the page I am referring to in my analysis is technically not the most current version of the page, however the changes that have been made since my initial comments have been minor edits to grammar and labeling.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I believe that more talk should be devoted to citing literary analysis on the poem. Especially finding sources that discuss the symbolism Poe used in this work.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No it does not. Annabel Lee is an incredibly famous work, which is why it's so surprising that its Wikipedia article is lacking.

comments - np
You're right that the Analysis section needs work. It seems to me there is some justification for citing other works by Poe if there are significant parallels and connections to "Annabel Lee," but you're right that there should be more focus on the poem itself, preferably by citation of scholarly discussions, as you also note.

As for the content being up to date: I think this question refers not so much to the particular version of the article you are evaluating as to the content of the article itself. The question of timeliness would be especially relevant to an article about a topic in science or medicine or current events, but in the case of a poem it's still possible to bring an article up to date by citing recent critical and scholarly sources along with older ones, for example.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral?
 * I would argue that there are some significant issues regarding neutrality and opinion in the article, as well as tone and diction. A Wikipedia article should have the tone of an encyclopedia entry, and the syntax used to create the tone of this article simply does not align with that standard.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The Analysis section, although providing citations, does not do an accurate job of surmising them and instead provides its own interpretation of the piece. I believe that this area in particular needs work.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * This article heavily focuses on the comparison between the titular character of this poem and other women in Poe's works, rather than actual analysis of this piece in its singularity. I, as well as other editors in the talk section, also noticed that the Synopsis of the poem was opinionated rather than neutral, with unsupported viewpoints.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No, not really although they should be. Especially in the Inspiration section, where I feel that some theories are more credible than others.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Perhaps not intentionally, but by including unsupported conjecture it does.

comments - np
You make fine points about the lack of neutrality in the article. When you say that "some theories are more credible than others," do you mean that some theories are given more credibility? If so - yes, that seems to be the case. The authors of the Inspiration section appear to be making judgments about these theories rather than reporting about them. It's possible that this is a problem of phrasing; the footnoted sources would have to be checked and the content represented more clearly.

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, although many are quoted, not all are surmised properly.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources themselves are thorough, however, I feel that the editors' work could be slightly better.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes they are.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I feel that the sources are quite diverse, with only a couple of authors being cited multiple times.
 * 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.)
 * I feel that the sources used are, for the most, part quite reputable.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they do. However, this article also cites printed books which I am not able to check.

Organization and Quality of Writing

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I feel that the article is not difficult to understand, however, its tone should be less casual.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I perceived.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes it is, although there could be more elaboration within those sections.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the article does a good job of including images to assist comprehension of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, for the most part, although I feel that there should be citations in the captions as well.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I'm not sure if they do because there are no citations for them in the References section.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they are. They don't feel cluttered at all.

comments - np
You make an interesting observation about the lack of citations associated with the images in this article and the difficulty of determining whether the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. We might be able to guess that these images are in the public domain (cf. Public domain), but guessing is not good enough.

Talk Page Discussion

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There was a lot of discourse in the talk page section about citations, sources that were or were not notable and other things of the like. It seems that user, Midnightdreary took charge for the most part in improving this article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as "C" class, but is of high importance. It is also a part of the Poetry WikiProject.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The language used is less amiable and more intense then the language that we use in class to assess an article. It also feels less personal.

comments - np
There's a lot of discussion on the Talk page from 2007. But the article history goes back only to 2010, so it's hard to tell where some readers found NPOV violations. I wonder what happened to the earlier stages of the article (or am I misreading these pages?).

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is classified as a "C" class page, which I find to be a shame, considering that this is also an article of high significance. While it is not abysmal there is much to be improved upon in this article.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is easy to understand, divided into reasonable sections, and not overly cluttered.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article desperately needs to be expanded upon, and also restructured as the current syntax is incongruent with that of an encyclopedia entry. Some sections, such as the analysis section in particular, needs to be rewritten with more neutral language that properly summarizes the sources it quotes.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say that it is underdeveloped, but has a good start to work with. With some more development and some rewrites, I believe that it will score higher with its next assessment.

comments - np
Your evaluation is detailed and thoughtful and you make a good argument for a thorough revision of the article. The article history shows that there is some recent attention to the article (by Midnightdreary and others). Are you considering this article for your Wikipedia project?