User:Emilyc6411/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am editing the article: Doing It (novel)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article is about a young adult book about teenagers discovering sex, and has been criticized for including content that is too mature for the target audience. My initial opinion of this article is that it is not very long or detailed. There is also a banner at the top stating that the article needs additional citations for verification.

Lead section
The lead section has a clear introductory sentence which details what the article is about. The following sentences give a good brief description of the novel, but do not detail the article's major sections. The lead is concise and does not include extraneous information, but there is a "citation needed" at the end of the section.

Content
The content of the article is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. It includes a good summary of the book, but only provides one, un-cited, sentence for the other sections. Under the "Reception," "Awards and Nominations," and "TV Series Adaptation" sections, there are no citations. The content is very light and needs more scholarly information.

Tone and Balance
The article is written from a neutral point of view. There is no opinion expressed, and no claims that appear heavily biased. However, there is only one source cited in the whole article, meaning the article cannot be fully balanced. In the "Reception" section, there are some missing viewpoints. The author wrote that it was a controversial book and was removed from certain libraries, but did not provide arguments for or against the book. Due to the lack of coverage, the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References
None of the facts are backed up by any citations at all, excluding one. The only source cited is the Los Angeles Times, and the link to the source does not work. The lack of sources does not reflect available literature on the topic, and creates an untrustworthy article.


 * 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.)

Organization and writing quality
The article is concise, easy to read, and well-organized. There are a few minor grammatical errors throughout the article.

Images and Media

 * 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?

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?
 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * 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?