User:Fantasyreader22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Film studies

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.)

I chose this article because it covers a topic that I studied during my undergraduate degree at Hofstra University. My first impression of the article, without reading it in its entirety, was that it seemed to cover a lot of topics with sources and links to other subjects within the article. It seemed very detailed and thought out as well as containing citations to give the rightful sources credit.

Evaluate the article
The lead section was clear and concise, giving an overview of film studies while not delving too much into the practice. The lead sentence was concise and gave a clear definition of film studies while also describing what will be discussed in the article. The lead paragraph listed a brief description of what film studies entails such as the exploration of narrative, artistic or political implications of cinema.

The content of the article was relevant to the topic and up to date, the last edit being in August of 2022. The content discussed covered a brief history and recollection of film studies using prominent and influential figures in film history. It also listed various approaches to film studies that were not described, but instead links were provided to read about them further. The article then went on to discuss modern film studies as well as the current and past curricula for the practice. Lastly, it gave a brief overview of both film studies in the United States and the world, to broaden our horizons as well as view the current standing of film studies in varying areas.

The article remained neutral throughout, representing each important aspect of film studies. If certain topics were not mentioned in detail there were links provided to further explore such as for prominent scholars, academic journals, and approaches to film. Upon checking some of the sources and links, the cites are mostly from academic sources such as Berkeley or the USC School of Cinematic Arts. Additionally, there are a diverse number of authors who edited this article, between 1-10. While the article does not have any photos or media, it is still written and laid out in a way understandable to the reader. Meaning, that each section is placed in the correct spot for the reader to absorb the information chronologically.

The talk page of this article is active, some comments left are both good reviews and constructive criticism such as in relation to the “World Film Studies” section where one Wikipedian feels it is too US-centric. Another Wikipedian wrote that the history section contains only men and needs better representation for female filmmakers. The article was a part of one Wikiproject for Georgetown University.

The article’s strengths definitely come from the overwhelming number of sources and links to other articles that provide different viewpoints on the subject. It can be improved by updating its material to a more modern basis, such as expanding its horizons to film in different areas of the world (and authors from those areas). It can also list other diverse people in history that were influential to film studies such as women, people of color, etc. I would say the article is well developed but not complete by any means.