User:EmCarp24/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
In the Tall Grass

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I was interested in how it summarizes the novel "In the Tall Grass" as well as how the author proceeds with providing an unbiased tone about it. Given the stipulations of creating a Wikipedia article, there should be a neutral tone embedded in the article so that audiences are not persuaded in any way about a particular topic. If the article does do this, then there is the potential for audiences to develop preconceptions about the article's given subject. I thought that this article would be interesting to evaluate because it has the potential to written as more of a review than a neutral, impartial summary and explanation.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section- The lead section does not provide a description of the article's major sections, but does give a brief description about what the novel's history, including when it was written, who was involved in creating it (Stephen King), and a short mention of who King collaborated with in order to publish the novel.

Content- The content of the article is simply just a plot summary with a brief section explaining the background of the film adaptation. The summary provides meaningful information that encompasses some of the main plot points of the book and allows its audience to get a good idea of what the book is about without revealing too much of the "how" and "why" certain actions may have occurred. This could be a considered a good aspect of the article, as audiences will be inclined to read the book without feeling like too much of it has been spoiled or given away. The film adaptation section could use some work, maybe detailing key differences about its adaptation of the book and giving background about how the movie was made and what creative choices were made by the producers.

Tone and Balance- The tone is neutral, only providing facts about the book and its content in the summary section and giving specific dates in the film adaptation section that give a timeline of all of its varying forms of reworking (novel to film, and film to screenplay).

Sources and References- All of the facts are directly backed up by the book itself, given that the main focus of the article is a summary. The film adaptation section includes sources that back up the particular dates that were listed, and lets the audience know that they are accurate.

Organization and Writing Quality- The organization and writing quality is sufficient, and does not include a lot of formal diction yet still remaining professional so that audiences can trust the information and understand it in a clear and comprehensive manner. The sections are well defined and are easy to follow so that readers are not confused by its structure.

Images and Media- There are no images in the article besides a picture of the front cover of the novel, which is specified as an e-book cover. The image is captioned and does adhere to copyright standards, however is not necessarily appealing. The image is more meant to just showcase what the novel looks like if audiences are interested in purchasing their own copy, but is not as engaging as including scenes from the movie or possibly a picture of Stephen King himself.

Talk Page and Discussion- There are no discussions about this article or the given topic and is not yet rated by anyone, which could indicate either that there is not a substantial amount of interest in it, or that it is concise enough to not induce any form of discussion.

Overall Impressions- The article provides a solid summary of the novel and allows readers to get a good sense of the kinds of themes that it includes. The other section for film adaptation however, could be developed better. There is minimal information about the film adaptation, and could include interviews with the producers, explain how much involvement Stephen King had with the making of the film, and compare and contrast the novel to its motion picture counterpart.