User:Flip Deciantis/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.


 * Heather Has Two Mommies: Heather Has Two Mommies
 * This article is worth evaluating because it is one of the first truly revolutionary children's books to address LGBTQ topics and gain tremendous recognition.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead accurately describes Heather Has Two Mommies as one of the first lesbian picture books, while also pointing out the author, illustrator, and publication year.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does include a brief table of contents, which features sections divided as Background, Summary, Reception, Analysis, See Also, References, and Further Reading.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead also includes a references to When Megan Went Away by Jane Severance, which came ten years before Heather Has Two Mommies and does contain lesbian characters.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is kept short and to the point. It mentions a broad overview of the importance of Heather Has Two Mommies, while not introducing too much of the actual content or reception of the book.

Lead evaluation
In this case, the Lead is very well-constructed. It succinctly introduces the general information about the article, such as author and publisher details, while simultaneously appreciating the book's broad effect on LGBTQ literature.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article's content is absolutely relevant. It provides a summary of the story itself, while also focusing on giving a comprehensive overview of how the book was received, and often challenged, by the public.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content of the article does seem to be relatively up-to-date. However, I feel that edits could be made to introduce more recent citations regarding the story. Most references in the article are from around 2008, and I feel that discussion regarding Heather Has Two Mommies has certainly progressed and would be useful to cite in the article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I do not immediately see any missing or improperly placed content. I feel that the article is very well designed in terms of providing summary and reception, as well as a section to address analysis provided by notable critics.

Content evaluation
Overall, I feel that the content featured in the article is very strong because it takes into account a wide scope of the extensive impact that Heather Has Two Mommies has had on society since its publication in 1989.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article does appear to be very neutral. Even at points where the editor could've included personal sentiments, such as in the "Reception" section, he/she remains unbiased and provides evaluations from external parties.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The author does a good job of remaining unbiased while describing such a staple of LGBTQ children's literature. The extensive nature of the "Reception" is extremely significant and the editor manages to keep his/her personal opinion out of the writing.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Although the article is relatively brief in terms of length, I feel that it does a good job of demonstrating a fair representation of all viewpoints, especially in dealing with the issue of controversial LGBTQ literature.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No the editor(s) is very careful to ensure that the writing does not come off as persuasive in any way at all.

Tone and balance evaluation
The careful approach to the subject matter is extremely accurate in its description of the effects of Heather Has Two Mommies, while maintaining the unbiased tone that Wikipedia prioritizes.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, almost every sentence in the article is tied to a link citation.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the citations include interviews and references to ALA bans.
 * Are the sources current?
 * For the most part, the sources are relatively current. One of the listings for "Further Reading" is from 2019.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are strong quality and take the reader to useful links.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is written in very understandable language and sentence structure.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There was one error in terms of punctuation that I edited, but otherwise I did not see any notable errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is broken into very helpful sections, which assists the reader in comprehending the importance of the book.

Organization evaluation
The article is incredibly organized and presents information in a way that is very approachable for the reader.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article does feature a picture of the cover of the book, which helps the reader get a broad image.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The image is captioned appropriately with the books title, country, publisher, etc., so yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the image does.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The image is placed on the right side of the page, so it does not distract from the text, but also provides interesting content.

Images and media evaluation
The image on the page provides a brief bit of information regarding the book through illustration.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Most of the conversation in the Talk Page is related to how to best approach the challenges the book faced due to lesbian topics.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is not rated, but is part of Children's Literature, Books, LGBT Studies, and Women Writers WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia takes a very similar approach to our class approach by breaking down background and challenge difficulties.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page gives an overview of the conversations and debates going on behind the scenes of the book and LGBTQ conversation in general.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is of high quality, but could be expanded greatly.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article does a very good job of linking its information to outside sources very consistently.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be expanded upon, there is a lot to talk about in terms of LGBTQ-based challenges.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well-developed.

Overall evaluation
The article is well put together and provides use full content.

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: