User:Connorehl/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The Giver

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 this article because I remembered enjoying The Giver as a child and wanted to evaluate the article. My brief impression of the article was that it was a decent article. The summary of the plot was relatively detailed, and I do not think it would need much added to it. I think it could have discussed far more of the genre and the critical reception, but it is a decent article.

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.)

Lead Section
The lead section is a decent section. It provides a quick overview of the plot and the acclaim that the story has received as well as some of its controversy, which are discussed later in the book. The introductory sentence could be combined with the first few sentences to include slightly more information. As the lead sentence is, it only conveys that it is a young adult dystopian novel. The content could be updated because the statistics of copies sold are up to date only as of 2018.

Content
The content is relevant to the topic and is also connected to the Giver. The article mainly focuses on the plot, critical reception, awards and the film adaptation as well as other adaptations. The content is mostly up to date. It could do with an update in books published and definitely reference to more academic literary criticism that it has received if there is any. The article does not address one of wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
The article is neutral. It mentions that it is a popular and acclaimed children's/ YA novel, but also mentions that it has been challenged and also criticized. There is no attempt to persuade the reader one way or the other about its reception.

Sources and References
There are a fair amount of sources and I did not notice any claims that were backed up without a source. However some of the sources for the plot summary come from book summary websites. I wonder if the summary would not be better if somebody based it off of the book rather than other summary websites. Additionally, the article may benefit from updated articles particularly as it relates to the critiques of The Giver, if there has been any update in the academic discourse surrounding it.

Organization and Writing Quality
The article is mostly well-organized. At a few points some sentences could be changed or edited together so that the wording of the article flows more smoothly.

Images and Media
The only image included is a picture of the title. It's inclusion is visually appealing. Additional images are unnecessary and would not improve the quality of the article.

Talk Page Discussion
The talk page has included discussions of vandalism and some other points. It particularly notes that there is no discussion of the book's placement on a challenged book list later in the article after it appeared in the lead section.

Overall Impressions
The article is decent and provides a good summary of the topic. It could use more current sources and more treatment of criticisms. Additionally, an effort should be made to find more about its academic significance or deal more with its treatment in academic circles. The brief mentions of its significance are disproportionately low to the importance, acclaim, and supposed controversy that the story has recieved.