User:DarienG2000/Evaluate an Article

Article evaluation feedback
This is a really fun topic to consider, and a robust article to evaluate for this exercise! It's clear from your responses in this exercise that you recognize that a longer article does not necessarily equal a better article, although it looks like this one does draw from a wide range of sources which tends to be a promising sign. I'm curious what specific view points around this film categorization aren't represented or are underrepresented here and where you see the author making an argument rather than presenting information, or what specific points you're seeing that are hard to follow. I do want to note that cross-linking to other Wikipedia pages is not the same as using other Wikipedia pages as sources--there are no Wikipedia pages in the reflist, which is the source list. You're correct, though, that seeing other Wikipedia pages there would be a red flag for reliability (and against Wikipedia's own rules). You have some strong evaluative elements here--it would be useful to support particularly some of the stronger stances you're taking in this evaluation to show how you're arriving at those conclusions. Nicoleccc (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

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: (link)Talk:Film noir
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. There are many different views and opinions on film noir and am searching to find If this article shows bias and relevant information.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No this article instead introduces with the users beliefs on film noir
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It gives a somewhat although mostly incoherent description of the major section of the article though it is clear the content section provides the most description.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes information about Coppola and Capra were introduced but was no where to be found later in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is overly descriptive and inconcise

Lead evaluation
The lead of this article lacked in many different ways. Most of the lead was presented in a personal perspective on the editors own view on the subject.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The content is relevant to the topic although presented in a more argumentative fashion
 * Is the content up-to-date? The content comes from many sources with many being up to date on the content
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content that would really add to this acre would be a page of films that are considered to be film noir

Content evaluation
There is a fair amount of content in this article but most is organized in a hard to reach way with areas not provided as much as really needed

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article takes a more argumentative style and in turn is not neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Many of the claims are biased making judgement whether films can be considered noir of not
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes there are many instances where some topics are described in detail where others are underrepresented
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
There are many sections where not enough information is given on a topic and other instances that seem over expressed.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No many come from links to other wikipedia pages
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They lead to places where it may be possible to find links to similar information
 * Are the sources current? They seem to be mostly current
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
The links provided in this article provide mostly lack luster links to many unrelated topics

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? This article is not concise and hard to navigate at points
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It somewhat does this but hard to follow on certain points

Organization evaluation
This article presents poor organization on which it presents its information

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * 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 no images in this article

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? it is rated in the C class
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It is mostly personal and discusses information in this view

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? This article earns a D grade from my evaluation
 * What are the article's strengths? It provides a more casual reading to tone
 * How can the article be improved? Information can be more clearly identified and could have greater explanation on some topics Many topics are not relevant to the article and could be removed to keep in concise
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article is poorly developed

Overall evaluation
D-

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: