User:Dma90/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
James and the Giant Peach: James and the Giant Peach

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article in part because I remember reading this book during my elementary school years in the classroom, and frankly, I hadn't known that it was a challenged book until interacting with this assignment. This article matters because it has apparently been challenged on the grounds of its "macabre" themes, with the article itself recognizing how some of the plot points are rooted in death/themes surrounding death. My preliminary impression of the article was that it was of high quality, in part because the edits made do not shy away from explaining why its challenged book, and much of the book's description used objective language in describing not only its challenges, but real-world impacts in film adaptations, musical adaptations, etc.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

-Yes, the lead section includes a both concise and clear introductory sentence.

-Yes, there's a context section within the lead that details the article's main sections.

-Unfortunately yes, the lead includes two sentences regarding the book's challenged status that, while providing what I personally believe to be interesting context, isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article.

-Yes, the lead is concise.

Content:

-Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic.

-Yes, the content is up-to-date.

-No, I do not believe there's any content that shouldn't be present in the article.

-No it does not concern Wikipedia's equity gaps nor does it discuss underrepresented populations/topics.

Tone and Balance:

-Yes, I believe the article was written from a neutral point of view.

-I do not believe there are any claims that are particularly biased towards one position.

-I do not believe there are any viewpoints that are either over or under-represented.

-I did not detect discussions of "fringe viewpoints," in part because I don't believe there are many to be had on this book, however all challenges to the book are stated plainly and objectively.

-This article does not seem to be within the business of persuasion.

Organization and Writing Quality:

-I believe this article to be of high quality (concise, clear, accurate, easy to follow).

-This article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.

-I believe this article is well-organized with respect to its successive topics.

Images and Media:

-I believe the inclusion of the front cover of the book provides enough context, as a single image, to enhance the understanding of the plotline.

-Yes, the image is well-captioned.

-The image does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations

-I believe that the image is laid out in an appealing way.

Talk Page Discussion:

-Conversations behind the topic include not only objective discourse regarding what should be included in the article, but also debate regarding the influences that allowed this book to come to fruition, and whether these influences should be mentioned within the article itself. I believe all talk behind this article is productive and not conflict-driven.

-The article is rated as a "Start-Class" project, and it is a part of the WikiProject "Children's Literature"

-It differs in that many of the concepts we discussed in class (censorship, credibility, objectivity) all seem to be not only present but established in the way conversations are flowing within the Talk page. Thus, I'd say that Wikipedia's discussion of this article isn't particularly different from what we discuss in class.

Overall Impressions:

-The article's overall status is good, with it being a start-class article of mid-importance.

-The article's strengths are its objective language and up-to-date nature.

-The article could be improved by including more information, perhaps in its own section of the article, discussing exclusively the challenges made by various societal institutions regarding the book's content.

-I believe this article is well-developed.