User:Chuckpresby/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Reader-response criticism
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I'm curious about different forms of literary criticism, and though I've studied reader-response before, I'm not entirely sure if I completely understand it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No. It talks about reader-response in the broad, but it doesn't touch up on much of what the article's major sections speak on.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Relatively. As the school of literary thought emerged in the 60s-70s, there aren't many recent developments listed in the article. However, thee are several from the 2000s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * A history of the school of thought isn't included. Also, there could be a section dedicated to opposing schools of literary thought.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


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

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * I believe so.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some of them. Many go back to the 80s-90s, but there are several from the 2000s onward.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * For the links listed, yes. However, there are many sources that link to published papers that aren't available to hyperlink though.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There's quite a few conversations about different theorists that scholars associate with reader-response criticism, and if and how they should be represented.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Start-class. WikiProject Literature
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * I don't think we've spoken about it in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It's still a work in progress and editors could improve upon it.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It dives into many different theorists and details varying schools of thought within reader-response criticism.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * A history could be included to give a background to the formation of it. The intro could also better outline what the major sections will be.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Under-developed

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: