User:Heilprin/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Sympathy (poem)

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.)

"Sympathy" is a significant poem by a significant poet, Paul Laurence Dunbar.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The introductory sentence is clear and concise (but a look at sources suggests the dating has not been justified). The lead refers to most of the major sections of the article; it does not mention the structure of the poem. It does not include information not mentioned in the article. It is concise.

The content is relevant to the topic. Most references are to scholarly sources published in the decades of the 1990s and 2000s. There are a few citations of later reference works, including the Poetry Foundation article about Dunbar (is the PF a tertiary source? it is an "independent literary organization," according to this site review: https://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/site-reviews/poetry-foundation.shtml).

Information about meter and stanza length could be added to the Structure section. The substantial quotation from Alice Dunbar-Nelson should perhaps be paraphrased, not quoted in full; it's also long enough and striking enough to somewhat unbalance the article.

The article is about the work of an African-American poet: in that respect it relates to a historically underrepresented population.

The article is written from a neutral point of view. There are no heavily biased claims or over- or underrepresented viewpoints. No minority or fringe viewpoints are considered. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader of anything in particular.

References are mainly to scholarly sources. Almost all facts are backed up (one exception is the assertion that Dunbar wrote "Sympathy" when he was 27; the cited source does not actually say this). There are no scholarly sources from at least the last five years or so. Further research would determine whether relevant recent literature exists. The sources do include historically marginalized individuals, and most come from peer-reviewed publications. The checked links work.

The writing is clear. In addition to the facts (about Dunbar's age), the logic of the final sentence in the Reception section is questionable; the sentence could be easily revised. There are no spelling or grammar errors. There are two questionable constructions. The present tense should probably be used in the second sentence of the Structure section as in the rest of that section ("revolves" rather than "revolved"). The article before the designation of the rhyme scheme, which begins with a vowel, should probably be "an" rather than "a." The phrase "rhyming scheme" should perhaps be "rhyme scheme" (see the title of the linked article, also redirected from "Rhyming scheme"; the use of "rhyming scheme" within that article should perhaps also be reconsidered). The sections make sense. The article could perhaps be reorganized: Structure should follow the text of the poem and Reception should precede Legacy.

The images are well chosen (relevant) and well captioned. They appear to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. They are laid out well.

The Talk page for "Sympathy" is devoted to its nomination for Did you know... in March 2021. The discussion is interesting and informative. The editor's comments support this evaluation of the article as neutral and well sourced. The comments on the long quotation indicate that it is not a copyright violation, but the objection here is rather that it is stylistically disproportionate and not in keeping with the rule of paraphrase. The article is part of Wikiproject Poetry. The article discusses in more detail the background of the poem (possible biographical connections) touched on in class; it considers critical views; it pays less attention to the structure and the content of the poem than the class did.

The article provides essential information about the poem and cites multiple, mainly scholarly, sources. It discusses a significant topic. It is well developed to a point. More discussion of the structure of the poem might be helpful and could provide more insight into Dunbar as a poet. Citations from scholarly analyses could be better organized to indicate tendencies in interpretation.

An additional note about sources: The References section could be improved. The inline citation of Leonard's article at n. 8 leads to information about the volume where it appeared, but the title of the article is not given; n. 12 gives the title of the article where the cited point is made, but the author (Joanne M. Braxton) does not appear in the note or in the text of the article.