User:BrittanyAngelMa/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Animation in the United States in the television era

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article as I have studied animation history for a long time (particularly 2D American animation). Animation history is important as the practices and techniques used in animation today can be attributed to the rich history of the medium and the animated television history is important for understanding how television cartoon practices have developed to the point seen today. Learning about how animation practices in television have developed over time is important for understanding the medium and further reinventing it.

My first impression of the article was generally positive though if I were to read it without knowing what any of the shows of this era had looked like, i may not quite understand it as well. I think the article could benefit from the addition of images so that the reader can have a better context of the animation scene at the time visually. It is very neutral but still gives the reader an idea of the success or critical reception of a work for historical context.

Evaluate the article
- The lead is short but still manages to describe what led to the era of television animation as well as the years that it covers.

- The background section goes into lightly more detail than the lead in regards to what led to this era of animation. The wording is a little unclear as to the time frame that they are referencing as they simply describe three decades but don't specify which ones clearly to the reader and I had to go back a few times to figure out what time frame they had meant. I think the examples at the end of the section should be more varied to bring a broader scope of notable characters/shows produced during the era to the reader as they seem to mostly cover one studio during one era aside from one outlier.

- The introduction to the section 'From the big screen to the small screen' goes into greater detail of the start of television animation following the popularity of theatrical animated shorts and the rise of television. There are many parts of the section that describe the quality of the programs which could be considered a matter of opinion but the author takes a neutral stance and offers up the critique of well known critics and historians like Leonard Maltin which allow the reader to get a sense of the reception of significant cartoons (this is important for providing context and doesn't seem to take away from the neutral and unbiased nature of the article).

- The rest of the article covers the practices of the time very clearly and covers a broad range of notable studios of the early part of the era. It goes into detail with regards to the techniques and practices used and the factors that led to them as well as some of the political climate that had led to the dissolution of a few of the studios during the time. All of the shows and studios listed lead to articles about them and make it quite easy to find more info.

- The section regarding animation of the 1960's and 1970's covers an even broader amount of history as that particular decade saw a lot of change so there were more sections separating events which allowed more focus on specifics compared to previous sections of the article. The greater amount of detail did not dwell on anything irrelevant however and the section had a good focus on the subject at hand. I am unsure about the shortening of names (particularly names that are already quite short on their own). For example, the name of the film Mary Poppins was shortened in the paragraph to Poppins which seemed a bit off when the film's name is already quite short as it is.

- The rest of the article ties up a lot of little details and adds in some loose trivia regarding various cartoons from the era.

- Though a majority of the information within the article cites animation history resources, clips/scenes that are discussed, books and interviews directly with the subjects of the article, etc., there are some sources that don't seem relevant. One irrelevant source is a Cinemablend listicle of cult classic films which doesn't seem to fit the article to well. Another irrelevant cited source is a review of a Futurama episode that was brought up in the article.

- It appears that in the talk page for the article, the 1950's-1960's section was removed from the main part of the article because of the significance of television animation during that time had not yet reached a peak. There is someone who changed the wording from 'one of the first' to simply 'the first' to make it more clear that Crusader Rabbit was the first cartoon produced for television. The other two comments appear to be disputes over copyright tied to an image that was used in the article.

- The article only contains a single image (one of animator, Ralph Baskshi). I think that there should quite a few more images in this article because animation is a visual medium and it would help the reader get a better understanding of the look and feel of the works coming out at that time and even clarify some of the talking points regarding the history.

- The article presents the history in a very neutral light though to give the reader a bit of context as to the reception of various shows during their time period (which may or may not have led to the dissolution of some studios) the author included the opinions of some reputable critics and general consensus on the quality of various projects.