User:Dd0227/Evaluate an Article

\

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the article has a brief introductory sentence describing what Roll of Thunder is and who it is by. I think it could include year and series in the first sentence, though.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Nope, it goes into themes but does not give a lead into article's sections.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * It does. The lead includes themes but there is no themes section in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is short and concise.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it is.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No—the last update was 10 years ago.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Themes are missing, as well as analysis, updated film/popular culture, and series
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, and it does address historically underrepresented populations and topics.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, it contains a lot of different sources and does not interject any personal analysis.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I don't think so and because the article is so short there isn't a lot of opportunity to do so.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, I would argue it's well dispersed.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No occasion of fringe viewpoints.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it doesn't.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes they are.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Perhaps for that year, but the brief research I did brought up a variety of newer articles on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, most are very dated.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * It could be more diverse, especially for a book written by a Black author.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they do.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It isn't poorly written, but it could benefit from some updates and condensing in some spots and expanding in others.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * A few, yes.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * It has the book cover but it could use more, for sure.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The book cover is.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The most recent comment is that the article has major problems and then was added to the children's literature Wikiproject. A lot of previous conversations included missing characters, general cleanup, and condensing the extremely lengthy plot section.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * C-Class. Novels, Childrens lit, and women writers
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We didn't talk about it in class but it doesn't contain anything about teaching to children/classification as children's literature.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is in need of a lot of cleanup, expanding, and overall editing.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The current citations chosen are strong, but it needs more.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Editing writing, adding sections (like children's literature and themes), editing plot section
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped and poorly written

Which article are you evaluating?
Article chosen: Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because the literature is really important to teaching literature and is a really popular novel. I was surprised to see it so underdeveloped.

Evaluate the article
The Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry article is underdeveloped and C-Class, because it is lacking several sections, such as a children's literature section and a themes section. It also needs editing for grammatical errors, condensing in the plot section, and updating to make it more relevant to 2023. It could also use some more engaging photos, like perhaps photos to compliment the popular culture references section. It also could use updating in the censorship section with the current increase in censorship of children's literature. The sources it has now are diverse, but it could benefit from more recent sources and more sources in general. The Talk page outlines contributing authors agreeing it needs "cleanup."