User:FeeSand/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: Rapunzel
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I really like fairy tales, and I thought it might be a good chance to read an article that could have a variety of sources and a lot of information to look at. I also know a lot about the topic already, which I figured would make it easier for me to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Sort of? It states what Repunzel is (a fairy tale) and its specific publication history.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it simply goes through a publication history and mentions several other folktales from other cultures which bear a resemblance to Rapunzel. There is nothing about plot, themes/characters, etc, and only a brief mention of it being converted into other "media."
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes; it overviews an extensive publication history and compares it to other fairy tales which are not actually brought up in the article. Instead, further down in the article the story is compared to two entirely different fairy tales not mentioned in the Lead (Beauty and the Beast, Jack and the Bean Stalk)
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's overly detailed, and marked by information that I believe should have its own section or sub-section.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes; all of the sections and information ultimately link back to the story of Rapunzel.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It seems to be, although it looks like the most recent source is from 2016. Considering how widely adapted the story is, it would be worth combing through the content and doing research to make sure that all modern adaptations of the story (movie, television, print) have been added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All of the content within the article does seem relevant to the story. I can't see any instances of missing information, except where specific citations are missing.

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
This article appears to be neutral and well-balanced. It doesn't seem to take a particular stance on Rapunzel as a story, and lays out various comparisons to other stories, as well as the potential ambiguities about its publication history and origins, without pushing one conclusion or another. I would object to the use of the word "striking" in the Lead, when the article says it bears "striking similarities" to another story, as that seems to imply a great connection where there might not be one. Later in the Lead, the word "extremely" in "extremely similar" is also used.

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
There is at least one instance in the article where a citation is needed in the Lead, and the entire section of Television media needs citations. Sources span time frame from 1984 to 2016, although the list is shorter than it seems it should be for such a popular and enduring folktale. Of the sources listed, though, there are several academic articles dealing directly with the material, which in the body of the article are used to great effect. One of the links doesn't work though: ^ Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm (1884) Household Tales (English translation by Margaretmm Hunt), "Rapunzel"

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
There are several places where, while the grammar is not technically incorrect, the sentence structure is awkward and ill-worded. I agree with the breakdown of sections in the article, but I would add another section specifically dealing with comparisons to other stories, and add more substantial sources to the "Theme" section. Honestly, the article isn't extremely well-written, or at least certain sections of it aren't. It could be much more concise, and not all of the information from some of the sources is entirely relevant, particularly in the "Themes" and varies "Media" sections.

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
There are three images in the article, all showing various different depictions of Rapunzel, and they're captioned, but the two farther down on the page could perhaps use more descriptive captions as the one in the Lead does. They aren't incorporated very well into the page either; one of them is in the Plot section, and seems relevant for visualization. However, the third picture appears between two sections, and seems random and simply passed-in. It doesn't lend any particular interest or insight to the article, so I'd honestly get rid of it. Upon inspection, all three pictures do seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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
This article is part of several WikiProjects: Children's Literature, Women's History, Mythology, Fictional Characters, Germany. The talk page is mostly concerned with word choice that isn't backed up by a citation, and discussion of how to represent the plot of the story. There are several suggestions about adding in a specific section for "Interpretations," since so many of the people on the Talk page took issue with some of the more subjective pieces of analysis that were put into the page without a citation, and with the way the plot was written. There's also discussion of a difference between English and German translations that spirals into a larger discussion about specific word usage in the article, which I've found fascinating. There are lots of small details for these editors to pick apart to make sure the article is as accurate and objective as possible, especially when it came to a rather long discussion on the validity of putting in notes on the sexual or erotic aspects of the story, since earlier versions of the article seemed to portray such an interpretation as the analysis of Repunzel, rather than simply an analysis, ie one of many different viewpoints.

also?? there seems to be a lot of hostility in this talk page; one user even uses the word "peons" when they're arguing about subjective v. objective interpretations of the text and versions of the story.

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's strength is in the amount of citations it has for publication history, similar myths, and television/movie adaptations. However, the wording of the article is awkward and sometimes confusing, and the specific content in certain sections would perhaps be more useful in a new section altogether. There's a good base of knowledge for the story, but it strikes me as under-developed as far as language and specific use of citations goes; it needs to be polished and carefully gone over for a new organization system that will make it clearer and less confusing to read.

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:Rapunzel (under the "Clean Up" section)