User:Ccoyle1231/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Geography Club (Geography Club)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I decided to evaluate this article because it is on a book that has been banned and challenged on numerous occasions. I also chose to evaluate this article because it seemed like it needed to be worked on and expanded.

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? The lead includes a couple of introductory sentences, but I think that there is room for it to be expanded, as it is only four sentences long.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * 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? The lead is concise, but I think it should be expanded.

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
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes; See below for more details
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that doesn't belong, but because this is a banned and challenged book, I think there should be a section about challenges within the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This article concerns a novel about individuals who identify as LGBTQ+

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 from a neutral point of view? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

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, but there are no citations in the plot summary, the most important section of the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
 * 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.) Yes; Peer reviewed sources exist through Georgetown's library.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

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


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * 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? Yes, but it could be expanded.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Not really; the only image on the page is the book's cover.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes?

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? As of my looking at the talk page, there were no discussions taking place.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is poorly rated. It is also part of WikiProjects about the LGBTQ+ Community and YA Literature.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This class is focused on banned and controversial books, and the article does not talk about the controversy/banning of this book in US schools.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? STUB CLASS
 * What are the article's strengths? It provides a good plot summary of the novel.
 * How can the article be improved? Citations can be added, academic sources can be consulted, and sections about the book's banning can be added.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article is underdeveloped.