User:Curiouscat21/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Independent film

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 have an interest in independent films and filmmakers, especially with the rising prominence of the production company A24.

The article matters because it gives a history of origins of the mainstream film industry and then goes onto speak about the subversion of this through independent filmmaking outside of Hollywood for example, contextualising its origins.

My preliminary impression was that the article was well informed and lengthy, with a sizeable number of sources.

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 article's lead section includes an introductory sentence providing a detailed definition of independent film and briefly explains what makes them independent, providing some examples. The lead does not include a description of the article's major sections, therefore could be seen as overly detailed, or lacks cohesion with the main body of the article.

(Content)

The article's content is relevant to the topic of independent film, for example in subsections about "Low Budget Film" and the "Independent Cinema Movement", however the article spends a lot of time talking about the history of filmmaking as an entirety, before focusing on independent film as a category.

The article does draw attention to the international independent film industry, however does not mention or give specific references to historically underrepresented groups within the industry. Furthermore, this section is rather brief compared to previous sections about the history of independent film, therefore the article is North American-centric.

(Tone and Balance)

The article is neutral and remains very objective and focused on providing a historically accurate timeline of filmmaking and the emergence of independent filmmaking.

The article overrepresents independent films that gained widespread success, for example Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Pulp Fiction.

(Sources and References)

A majority of the sources are from the 1990's and the 2000's, with a small number of sources written in the 2010's, which would make the references relatively current, however there are no sources referenced from the 2020's.

The sources are written from reliable and reputable sources such as Oscars.org and online newspaper articles such as The New York Times and Variety.

(Organization and writing quality)

The article is well written in that it is clear and very thorough with the information on independent film it provides, as well as paying attention to correct grammar and spelling.

The article could be organised better, by shortening the section on the history of filmmaking and exploring different modes of independent filmmaking, for example in the "Analog to digital" subsection earlier on. The lack of conciseness makes the article lose it's direction slightly.

(Images and Media)

There are two images within the article, one of a panel of filmmakers at an independent film screening and a red carpet image of independent auteur Wes Anderson. Both images are well-captioned and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, however are not positioned next to text that necessarily relate to the images themselves.

More images, for example, could be included to illustrate the technical equipment used in independent films, as the paragraphs alone are very lengthy and include a lot of technical descriptions that may be difficult to understand for casual readers.

(Talk page discussion)

The article is rated a C-class and is part of the Wiki Project "Film".

There are a few disputes and suggestions, for example on whether to merge the independent film Wikipedia article with the experimental film article. Furthermore, some Wiki users also question how the major focus of the article is on American independent film, thus misses out on including more underrepresented groups and international filmmakers' work.

(Overall impressions)

Overall, the article is very strong in terms of how much content it includes and providing a thorough history on the origins of independent filmmaking and explains the technical aspects that has allowed it to evolve.

I would assess the article as well-developed, however, the article can be improved by having sections re-written that are more digestible for more casual readers to read and understand in one sitting.

~

Feedback
Good work! Chronophoto (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)