User:Dc.162/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The article I am evaluating is this article on the The Cow Who Clucked.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because it seems like the article is in a very preliminary form. Having read this book before, I felt that I could make meaningful suggestions for how the article can be improved.

Evaluate the article
Lead section:


 * the lead sentence states what the book is and when it was published, but is only one sentence long and not very fleshed out
 * it does not describe what the article's topic is, or what information is included in the article
 * a better lead section would briefly describe the book's significance in children's literature and give an overview of the article's content

Summary:


 * the summary section is very short (only 3 sentences) and is not very well written
 * incorrect grammar in the second sentence, can also be edited to have less of an informal tone
 * this section does not really tell us much about the style or the structure of the book

Content:


 * besides the summary, there is only one other section on reception
 * the reception section only includes quotes by other publications about the book, but it does not give an overview of whether the reception was positive, negative, or neutral
 * there is also no description of whether the book is widely known or not
 * there is also no mention of the demographics of the audience of the book's readership
 * the content is relevant to the book, but it is not very comprehensive and there is not much written about it

Tone:


 * the tone is neutral and appropriate based on the content of the article

Images:


 * there are no images
 * would be better if it included an image of the cover of the book on the top right corner

Talk page:


 * there have been no updates to the article since February 2018
 * only 1 comment seemingly by the same user who created the article
 * this topic is a part of the wikiproject on children's literature

Overall:


 * the article provides a solid start, but is very short and does not include very much information
 * the article has a neutral tone, but can be edited in its grammar and delivery as it is currently a bit too informal sounding
 * the article is not very complete, there is only 2 sections of the article and not very many citations
 * this is a good start to the article, but there can definitely be more content added about the book's author, linguistic style, illustrations, and significance in children's literature