User:Cmswim18/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: The Handmaid's Tale
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I read it last year for my English class about the intersection of feminism and literature. I wanted to see what elements of the book make certain individuals believe the book should be banned.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead highlights important basic information about the book, its structure, the narration and its success. The lead is concise but there isn't much of a flow between the paragraphs which makes the article a bit jumpy. The introductory sentence is a clear sentence that highlights the publication date and the genre of the text.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is up to date as the last edit was made in June 2020. The article's sub titles highlights the main parts of the book: Summary, Setting, Characters, Awards, Reception & Medias. It is missing a section about the genre of the book. The descriptions under each content title could be more developed. I also believe that more content titles can be included in order to increase the cohesiveness of the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral. I believe that the feminist analysis and race analysis could be developed further and maybe even a few connections can be made between the two.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are mostly newspaper articles and scholarly articles. The newspaper articles are from various large publications such as The New York Times, The Guardian, The Verge and a few local newspapers as well. Many of the scholarly articles are analyses of the various themes present in "The Handmaid's Tale". There are even a few interviews with Margaret Atwood that are cited. The sources are mostly from the 2000's.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The organization of this Wikipedia page is not very good. The page doesn't flow well with the way the content is organized. It is quite jumpy when one reads the article from start to finish. One problem I noticed was that the Wikipedia page includes the definition of "unwomen" and "jezebels" under analysis more specifically Feminist Analysis. I believe the terms should be moved under "Setting" and placed in a sub category after Legitimate Women called "Illegitimate women." I think the page needs a bit more structure to increase the cohesiveness of the article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There are two images included in this Wikipedia page. The first one is the cover of the first edition book. The image's description is well-captioned and the artist is cited. The second image included is one of a can of Old Dutch Cleanser which gave Margaret Atwood inspiration for the bonnets worn by the Handmaids. Neither image has a citation explaining where the image comes from. I also think more images could be included in order to support some of the descriptions in the article (ex: the attire of the handmaids, the Martha's, the wives etc)

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The article is rated in the C Class. It is part of WikiProjects Novels, Philosophy and Women Writers. The most current discussion is to discuss the redirect for the term Marthas to a different Wikipedia page. The talk page isn't extremely active even though there is a lot of information missing. I began to wonder if the reason for the lack of editing on this page is related to the discrimination and lack of representation present on Wikipedia's platform. Is information not being added to this page because Margaret Atwood is a female author? Is it because the book explores feminist topics that it isn't receiving traction? I was most surprised by the fact that supporting information race analysis was only added in 2019.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think the article needs a bit of work. The article has a neutral tone and I believe that the plot summary is quite detailed and explains the story effectively. However, I think that each section could be expanded more and add more sub topics which would allow the article to flow. I think the lead section also needs to be edited in order to have a more coherent.

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: Talk:The Handmaid's Tale