User:Freldf20/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.


 * Moby-Dick: Moby-Dick
 * I read Moby Dick two years ago and it is my favorite book; I even have a poster in my dorm room this year.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The opening paragraph focuses too much on the fact that it was a "commercial failure" during Herman Melville's lifetime; while this is an interesting contrast to the popularity it has today, it is not important enough to go in the introductory paragraph. The first paragraph is short and concise and tells the reader that they are about to read an article about this book, however does not give any information about the book. The first paragraph focuses too much on how the book was received by the public when it was released versus how it is received now. The second paragraph of the Lead focuses on Melville's process in writing the book and where he found inspiration. In the second paragraph it mentions that Melville's literary influences include Shakespeare and the Bible, and then goes on to mention Nathaniel Hawthorne; I would include Hawthorne in his literary influences since he made the largest impact on his writing, especially this book, and the largest impact on Melville himself, to the point some may even call it an obsession or a crush. The third paragraph jumps back to the process of publishing the book, similar to the first paragraph. The break of the second paragraph makes it feel choppy and does not flow. I also believe that giving a brief overview of the book and the author is more important than the history of the publishing and the title. The conclusion sentence of the Lead is about the number of copies sold of this book during the authors life, again putting emphasis on the economic status of the book instead of the book or author themselves.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The first section of the Content is a summary of the plot including 19 detailed paragraphs recounting the action that occurs in the novel. My one complaint of this section is that it does not include any character descriptions (there is another link for a character page) or character development, which is one of the biggest themes throughout the book. There are chapters on solely one character, where the reader gets to learn the background and the motives of this character from their point of view, and these chapters are integral to the novel. This section is also missing the numerous chapters of in depth whale anatomy. While this might not be part of the "plot" since it does not add to the action of the narrative, it is still a major portion of the book that should be included in a summary of it.

The second section is on structure with the first paragraph on point of view. This paragraph explains how Ishmael, the primary narrator of the story, refers to the fact that he is consciously writing it. However it misses the fact that the novel does in fact switch points of view for several chapters on different character, where we can hear the voice of both Ishmael and the character of the chapter. In the paragraphs on the chapter structure, the article finally points out the multiple "non-narrative" chapters, which have failed to be mentioned earlier. There is a note at the bottle of the article pointing out that these chapters range in sections from the 32nd chapter to the 105th chapter and includes one fifth of the total number of chapters, illustrating that they make up a large section of the novel yet are not mentioned until this section and not nearly in enough detail. The structure of these paragraphs is very distinct and the article does not describe this in the most concise or understandable way.

The next large section is the background, which includes the autobiographical elements, whaling sources, and composition. This section is interesting and illustrates the depth of the novel and the true details of expeditions that are hidden under the gripping plot and comprehensive character analysis and growth. The final larger sections are about the publication history and reception of the novel. I believe that these large sections take away from the actual novel and focuses too much on the feedback/selling of the novel instead of the novel itself.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

This article has much more of a historical or numerical tone than I believe it should. It focuses too much on the publication and selling points of this book instead of giving an in depth analysis or summary of the genius behind the book. This is illustrated by the fact that one of the longest sections is on the publication history of the book, including Melville's revisions and British editorial revisions, British censorship and missing "Epilogue," the last minute change of the title, and sales and earning of the book. While an interesting and important section to include, the length and focus on this topic starts to take away from the rest of the article and even from the novel itself. It then goes on to include extensive sections on the reception from Britain and America and the legacy and adaptation it left in its wake.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The majority of the citations and references are from books, which leads me to believe they are reputable sources. Since this novel and Melville himself gained so much popularity, there are numerous books and reliable articles that reflect on his writing, although some of these secondary sources may be biases or have certain viewpoints that could then appear in the article. The links that I clicked all worked, however most of them were books and just brought me to a page where I could buy the book, not actually giving me access to the source.


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is well organized and well written, and I found no spelling or grammatical errors while reading. It is clear and fairly easy to read, but I would not call it concise. Mirroring the book itself the article is very long and goes in depth on certain aspects of the novel or author that some, including myself, might not deem as important. The article is well organized, yet as I have mentioned previously I don't believe that the breakdown of the section reflects the key points on the topic.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article includes 7 images, two of which are just pictures of the front cover itself. The images of the action in the novel, such as the Queequeg or the images of Moby dick himself, do help the reader understand and get through the significant and rich plot summary. However, in the latter section on the publication, etc, of the book there are no pictures which can leave the reader lost in long bodies of text.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

This article has been rated as B-Class ranging from high/top to middle importances. The talking pages says that it has been listed as a "level-4 vital article" and asks for readers to improve it if they can. There is one claim from yesterday that there is a grammatical error relating to the "are" in the first sentence--this change was made. There is also debate on calling the first sentence "Call me Ishmael" "among world literature's most famous" since worldwide it is not as well known as it is in England and the United States.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

This article has great depth on the topic of Moby Dick, but could use more on Herman Melville himself. The article is well written and has a wide range of topics, yet does not focus on the text itself enough. The article is well developed, yet could be developed more in some areas, such as the plot and character summaries and the knowledge on the author, and overdeveloped in others, such as the history of publication and editing.


 * 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?

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: