User:EllieM0703/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: Into the Wild (film)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

This film is one of my favorite movies of all time, so I was interested and familiar with the content of the article. I also appreciated the opportunity to examine this Wikipedia page from a more critical point of view, since I have actually used this page to look up facts, such as the cast members or awards won. I felt like this was a good article to evaluate, since I understood the topic but not well enough to create bias.

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 was very successful in establishing a basic understanding of the article's content. The first few sentences state the genre of movie, the director, and a brief description of what it is about. It describes the major sections by stating the subject of the film, the main actors, and a brief summary of what awards it won after its premiere. The only section of the article that is not explicitly stated in the Lead is the soundtrack, which is not mentioned other than that it won a Golden Globe. I did not find any material in the Lead that was not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Overall, the Lead is clear and concise. If you were a reader who knew nothing else about the film, the Lead would provide a sufficient amount of material to create a basic understanding of what both the article and movie were about.

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?

Content evaluation
As someone who has seen this film before, I can definitely say that the content was relevant, up-to-date, and clear. The last edit was also made on January 8th, 2020, which is an indicator that the article is being maintained. The last time the talk page was edited; however, was on January 26th, 2018. I felt that all of the material was descriptive without being superfluous and had many links that were helpful for further research. I did not think there was any material in the article that was irrelevant or unnecessary. My only concern is that some of the sections, like the production section, were quite short and could use further elaboration. Overall, the sections were clear and would make sense to lay people who have no knowledge of the film prior to reading this article.

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
I believe that the article maintains a neutral, objective tone throughout, until the critical response section. During this section, the authors only use positive reviews and do not include any criticism of the film, which I thought could potentially create some bias. Despite the overwhelmingly positive response to the movie, some negative reviews could have neutralized this section of the article. Other than that, I felt that the authors did a good job keeping the article largely objective. Mostly facts were used, so there was little room for personal opinion to be inserted, which is one of the essential tenets of Wikipedia.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
From what I can tell, the article is backed by good sources. The references section features numerous reputable sites, including the American Film Institute and the National Board of Review. On the Talk page, there is a statement that tells readers that the article is backed by the American Cinema Task Force, which also serves to increase the reputability of the article. The article was also very comprehensive in its explanation of the plot, cast, and production, which demonstrates that the sources had a sufficient amount of information. The movie was released in 2007, so the information is mostly from then, but the most recent sources are from 2017 and 2016, which shows that there is also current information being used in the article. When I clicked on the links, they worked well.

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 article was well-written, as it was written in lay speech and was easy to understand. If I had read this article on a normal occasion without examining it for an assignment, I would have had no issues comprehending the material. The article was broken into clear, concise sections that allowed for easy reading. The sections included plot, cast, production, and release; all of which were essential to a comprehensive understanding of the film. In addition, I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors.

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
The article only uses one image; the poster art and cover of the film. This image does enhance the understanding of the topic, since the cover features a scene that is arguably the most important in the plot. There is no caption to the image, so it does not really have any description behind it. The source is IMP Awards and complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law. I would say that the image is laid out in a visually appealing way, since it is the cover photo for the article and gives a clear picture of what to expect in the film. While there was only one image on the page, I think it did a good job of providing a visual element and created some familiarity with the content of the 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?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The conversations in the Talk page are largely focused around the content of the actual film, not necessarily the page itself. The film is notoriously thought-provoking, so it doesn’t shock me that many people are driven to discuss the plot here! One person suggests lessening the amount of cast members mentioned in the lead, which looks like it was fixed later. In January 2018, someone had mentioned that they added a link to the page and asked for feedback on it. The article is rated as a C-class article on the quality scale but has not yet been rated on the importance scale. This article is a part of the WikiProject Alaska, which is a collaborative effort to improve the amount of information on the U.S. State. It is also a part of the WikiProject Film. I feel like Wikipedia discusses the topic pretty closely to how we talked about it in class. I was just surprised to not see much bot action on the talk page.

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
The article is of C-class status and has been checked against the B-class status. I believe that this article has a lot of strengths; the plot is clear and comprehensive, all of the relevant cast members are listed, and the release section features a long list of the awards that it was nominated for or won. I felt like this article was sufficient for readers who wanted a brief understanding of the film as a whole. However, I do think it can be improved on. The article is relatively short in some sections and could definitely use more information. For example, the production section is only five sentences long. While each sentence is relevant to the topic, I believe that that area could definitely be expanded upon. In addition, I believe more imaged could be used to provide visual detail. Overall, I believe that the article was well-developed and certainly serves the purpose for which it was written.

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: Talk:Into the Wild (film)

I am not really sure how to link to feedback, but if you click this link and scroll all the way down you will see my name along with a Talk section titled "More Information on Production?"