User:Crh110/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Diary of a Wimpy Kid is one of the most popular modern day children's literature, and has been since I was a child. The graphic novels were a big part of my life, and is for many children today. The current article on Wikipedia does not have much information, and has not been edited much.)

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

- The introductory sentence is solid, along with the lead section; however, it could be beneficial to provide a sentence or two describing what kind of book(s) this is (children's literature/graphic novel). The section does introduce the article's major sections. The lead speaks a lot about the beginning/creation of the series. This could be better said within its own section, rather than the lead. I would say the lead is a bit too detailed, and could be more concise by way of splitting into several sections.

Content

- All of the content in the article is relevant to the topic. I do think there could be more, regarding the creation of the series/more what it is about. The content is up to date, with an update to the list of novels released yearly. The descriptions of each novel could be better detailed.

Tone and Balance

- The article is neutral, mostly because this is not a topic that has much bias.

Sources and References

- The article references plenty of sources and the facts are all backed up, and current (2023 as most recent).

Organization and Writing Quality

- The article is well organized, with the lead containing all relevant topics of content. However the wording could be better, with some grammatical mistakes, and tense errors.

Images

- The image quality could be better - there is only one, and it does not contain the iconic character (Greg) from the series.

Overall Impression

- Overall Status: C

- Article mentions a lot about the more recent success of Diary of a Wimpy Kid, but fails to contain a section about the beginnings

- I think the article has a good start, but can definitely be improved, to point of completion.