User:CadeCaggiano/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Thirteen Reasons Why

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I was previously aware of the TV show based on the novel. Considering the backlash and controversy surrounding the TV series, I figured researching the novel and it's impacts would be very interesting. The topic of suicide among teens is a very sensitive subject, so the exposure and potential glorification of suicide is something that is heavily debated in current day society. This potential harm to the viewer can be a justification for censorship, thus being the reason I selected this article to further explore the details of the controversy.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, the introductory sentence outlines the topic of the book and a general summary of it’s plot.


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No, the lead doesn’t indicate the sections that are later discussed aside from just the table of contents. It can do a better job on laying out what the intent of the article is.


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

No


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I believe it is concise and provides a good overall intro to the book and the topics surrounding it.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, the content all relates to the novel, the subsequent TV series, and their impact.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Yes, the content was updated multiple times in 2021.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I think the “Recent Developments” section should be updated to include more developments.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Not really, but I could see how discussion of suicide can be a sensitive subject, so many people may avoid writing or reading about it. In that way, it may perhaps be underrepresented.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?

Yes.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, the article is purely informative and offers multiple views of the controversy.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I can see how the advocate for the positives of the novel may be underrepresented as there is a lot of focus on the potential negative implications it could have.


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

This question doesn’t necessarily apply.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, the article has no intent to sway the reader one way or another. It presents multiple viewpoints and opinions without discretely favoring one over the other.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, there is an extensive list of sources that cover the available literature well.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes, many of the sources are from the past few years.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

I believe so, I believe historically marginalized people dealing with mental illness or thoughts of suicide are well represented.


 * 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 think this fandom website may potentially offer a better synopsis and overview of the netflix series, but I believe this wikipedia article does the best with the novel.

https://13reasonswhy.fandom.com/wiki/13_Reasons_Why


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, they work.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The article is definitely well written. The style applies very well to the objective of wikipedia as the information is very concise and clear, avoiding any personal opinions or non focused points.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I’m not sure if the structure of the article is broken down the way I would’ve done it. For example, there is only a limited section on the plot overview, while having an expansive section devoted to introducing each character which I think holds less significance.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

There is only one image on the page, and that is of the cover of the novel.


 * Are images well-captioned?

Yes, the novel is outlined by all publication details underneath the image.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes, very well organized.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There are some controversial discussions over the inclusion of certain characters in the character list. Also, there is some heated debate over the order of the tapes, but one user makes a strong stance on the idea that this order is the order from the novel, not the TV show.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is part of two WikiProjects (WikiProject Novels and Wikiproject Children’s literature) and was rated as Start-Class and High-Importance on both.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Obviously, the talk page on Wikipedia is much more informed on the topic as these users are actively dedicating their time to contribute to an informational page about the novel. Aside from that, the dialogue between users is a little more informal than I would’ve expected.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?

The article’s overall status is well-developed, thoroughly reviewed, and highly important.


 * What are the article's strengths?

The article is very concise and clear. If someone who had never heard of the book read this article, they would have a thorough understanding of what occurs in the story. In addition, they could get a good grasp on the impact of the novel and the controversy or conversations surrounding it.


 * How can the article be improved?

I think the structure could be improved by condensing the character introductions and expanding the plot description. This article seems to go into detail in places where it shouldn’t while not including enough detail in necessary sections.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

I think the article is pretty well-developed as it has been worked on and modified for over 12 years now. Through the talk page, you can see that a lot of thought and deliberate decision making has gone into the production of a good article that accurately represents the novel.