User:CSURam222/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Normal People - Wikipedia

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 chose the Wikipedia page for Normal People because I really enjoyed the TV show and I was interested in how it linked back to the book, which the TV show was based on. This series is important because it has many important themes in it such as socioeconomic status, and also explores relationships healthy and non-healthy, that can help people feel seen and connected. My first impression was that it covered all of the bases, in a minimalistic way. I also found the organization of the page to be chaotic and hard to understand.

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.)

In this Wikipedia article, the lead section does an okay job of explaining the facts of the book and miniseries but lacks any real synopsis of the book and or film, not even a mention of characters. It also has no brief overview of what the article includes. Making it unhelpful for viewers. The main thing I noticed was lacking from the content page is a thorough summary and overview of the book. It briefly touches on a few main points, but completely disregards the ending and most important parts. If someone was using this page for a summary, they would have failed. The theme section also does not discuss the dynamic themes that are seen throughout the book and mainly touches on the socioeconomic wares, which is important but not the main theme. The article does have a neutral theme which makes it easy to form your own opinions. The sources are also thorough and seem to be reliable overall. As previously mentioned, the layout is confusing. It should be organized with the awards and reception near the end, not in the middle. It interrupts the overall flow and makes it harder to read. Overall, the article needs just a few more updates to make it as accessible and easy to read as possible.