User:Cooper0014/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
2 Fast 2 Furious

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 it seemed like a low stakes one that there would be a chance of some errors that would make for a good evaluation. My preliminary impression of the article are that it is not very long but it does seem to be well organized and concise perhaps in a good way.

Evaluate the article
Lead Article: The introductory sentence is not necessarily concise, but in place of conciseness it sets up the rest of the article well and properly describes the topic and what the rest of the article will be about. The lead article does include a contents for the rest of the article along with individual links to each major section. There is no information included with the introduction that is not seen within the rest of the article. I would say that the lead article is just the right length, you could read the lead and not have to go beyond that to get a basic idea of the topic, but if you wanted a longer and more in depth description of the topic you could read the rest of the article and be satisfied in that way.

Content: The content within the article is all relevant to the topic, there is nothing that is unrelated to the topic and all of the given information is helpful and contributes to the article in an effective way. The article is free of any bias, it conveys each thought as a fact and does not include any opinion with it, the sourcing that is included helps to substantiate this. There is not much of a point of view included in this article outside of summarizing point of view, the point of view is one of which that has seen the movie and is knowledgeable of it and there is nothing beyond that. There is no content missing or left out the article is comprehensive and has an adequate amount of information. The article does not deal with any equity gaps it is essentially just a summary of information there is no attempt to contribute to society or anything of that sort.

Tone and Balance: The article is neutral, there is no bias or leaning towards one opinion or another, the article is nothing more than a summary. No viewpoint is really taken it is just an outside view that examines a movie in a matter of fact way, there are no opinions really to speak of only facts. No persuasion is trying to be achieved and there is no group that is over or underrepresented.

Sources and References: The sourcing for the article is relevant and accurate, the links given are to trustworthy film sites and other Wikipedia pages. I believe that it is crucial for Wikipedia to reference itself if it wants to at least seem like a relevant source. The sources cover a good portion of the reliable information that is out there on the internet to be gathered from movie review sites like IMDb and the movie's official website. The sources are not necessarily current, there are as current as they can be for a movie that came out in 2003. There is no groundbreaking diversity from the sources but they are accurate and as close to the best as they can be.

Organization and Writing: The writing in the article is well done there is no issue reading it the language used could be understood by almost anyone, there are no words that you would have to go look up and there are no visible or glaring grammatical errors. The organization is pretty good it is easy to find the things that you are looking for and the inclusion of the table of contents in the lead article makes everything feel really put together.

Images and Media: There are only two images on the page, which is good because with anymore than that they can become distracting. The imagery used is laid out in an appealing way and they are within the given Wikipedia guidelines.

Talkpage Discussion: The first couple of discussion posts are just about the movie itself nothing to do with the page and those things are in no way helpful or productive in terms of making the page better. There are a few other pages that are relevant to the page and show evidence of clean up of the page and removal of some of the unnecessary things involved with the page. The page has a low importance rating, but is included in three different Wikiprojects. The way we talked about the talk page in class seemed like something that was constructive only for editors of the page, but on some pages people are on the site like it's a Reddit page or something of that nature.

Overall Impressions: Overall I think that this article is one that is not paid too much attention to because it is well put together and it has been formed in a way so that people can go to it and get the information they were looking for. The strengths of the article are that it is well organized and it takes no biases or points of view, it is not a review of the movie, it is more of a in depth summary and overview of the movie, it's creation and it's accomplishments. The article can be improved mainly on the talk page, the irrelevant comments make it unclear where the flaws were in the article and the article could have some current reflection on the impact on the movie and what people think about it in today's culture. Overall the article is about as developed as it could be, the log of changes made that are evident in the talk page show that changes have been made to get the article to the point it is in now and it has been narrowed down to only useful facts.