User:FaeBee/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The Picture of Dorian Gray

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it states the title author and publication history of the novel.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It doesn't fully introduce all following sections but it gives us a summary of the story as well as a short reception history that naturally leads to the rest.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, it does not.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It has concise details

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, everything is relevant to the novel.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No everything makes sense and helps with understanding the novel.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Not really, although the author is a gay man so that might help even if the novel isn't explicitly queer.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not really, it all seems to be as neutral as possible
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * All the viewpoints seem to be equally represented
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, everything links over to a source
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * As current as they can be for an older novel
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * It seems so, yes
 * 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.)
 * I don't think so, they all seem to be good sources being used
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, all the ones I tried worked.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the flow works well
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I can see
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the organization into sections makes sense for the article

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Some of the pictures seem unnecessary, like the one of Angela Lansbury at the bottom.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes they are.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes they seem to.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Iffy, but to me that's a personal preference thing

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?
 * There are discussions of adding or subtracting some of the sections, most recently a section dedicated to antisemitism has been removed as it didn't make sense with the rest opf the page
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a C-rated article, not a part of any projects so it seems.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It varies becaus ethere is a lot less talk of the homoerotic subtext in the Wikipedia both on the page and talk page.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The articles strengths to me lie in the sources, both how many there are and how good they are.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I think the community needs to agree on what it needs and what it doesn't. From the looks of the talk page it's been bounced several times between "good" and "c" rated.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Personally I think that it's developed alright, though it could probably stand a few more receptions and look at modern reactions to the novel as well.