User:Dylanregina/Evaluate an Article

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: Harry Potter
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I've chosen this article to evaluate as I have a decent knowledge of this subject, this will give me an easier time understanding if the information is correct.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation:
The lead contains an introductory sentence that clearly describes the articles topic, in addition to a brief description of many of the article's major sections. However, I would say that it could be considered overly detailed, as the top of the page specifies that this is about the book series and not the world of harry potter, nor the movies, yet information on both of those is included in the lead. What's left out from the major sections is any mention of the controversy around the series.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content does look to be mostly up to date, however what's left out is any of the controversy over Rowling's perceived transphobic and anti-semitic characters. It has been discussed by critics many times, as many see the goblins as an anti-semitic image, the character Rita Skeeter being transphobic, the perceived racism in characters like Cho Chang, and more. However, none of the controversies are listed in the controversies or literary criticism section. I additionally searched key terms related to these to ensure I didn't miss anything, and found no results on the page.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article seems mostly to be neutral, however emitting content that looks unfavorably on the series and author seems to me to not be neutral. It does not seem to overtly be attempting to persuade the reader one way or the other.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The links I checked all worked, and the sources seemed to be reliable. I did not see a diverse spectrum of authors in the links and sources that I checked, however there are over 200 sources so there is a chance I missed some authors - still, keeping this in mind, I believe it could be more diverse.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The organization looks easy to understand and broken down into major points for the topic, and I did not notice any blatant grammar or spelling errors. It was easy to read and understand.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * 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 only or  images, many look to be similar to each other, but they are all relevant to the article. They are not laid out in a very visually appealing way, but I think this could be because there are large blocks of texts missing accompanying images, and then two or three images right next to each other, on the same side of the page. I think this could include additional images and a more appealing overall media layout.

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?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There are not very many conversations going on behind the scenes and the few conversations there are do not seem to be very productive. One conversation requested the inclusion of controversies related to minorities, and they did not update the page, simply responded there are already pages for that and included links in the controversy section. However, as there are parts in the article that discuss information from other pages, I think that it is not productive to not include any of this information in the series page, as it is an important part of the criticism to include. I believe the editors could have responded to this request better by updating the page with brief overviews of these controversies, and including something along the lines of "for more information on these controversies, see these wikipedia pages"

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall I think the page was well written, and included a good amount of clear and relevant information, it is well-developed overall, however it could improve by mentioning the controversies around minorities that have been brought up by critics many times about the series.

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: