User:HermioneGranger1997/sandbox

Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * 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? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * 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
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * 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?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * 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

 * 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?

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * 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

 * 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?

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?
Jane Austen fan fiction

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Jane Austen is my favourite author. I have read various works of Jane Austen Fan Fiction over the years, including some of those mentioned on this Wikipedia page. This article is very short, but it covers some of the major information on the topic.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: provides a clear, concise, and nonbiased definition of JAFF and its popularity over the past hundred years. The lead addresses other issues including the main form of JAFF and the fact that most JAFF draws on Pride and Prejudice. The section does not provide any information about the "Notable Works" section or indicate how the author(s) chose which works of JAFF are significant enough to be considered "notable," however. I heard somewhere that JAFF was the first FF ever. If this information is valid, it would be a good addition to this section. There should also be a link to a page on fan fiction more generally.

Content: given the proliferation of JAFF, some of the works mentioned here could be considered out of date. The article does not address the subgenres of JAFF, such as fantasy/science fiction JAFF, modern adaptations, continuations of the novels, what if? variations in which one aspect of the original plot is changed, race-bent variations where the characters are re-casted as Black, Indigenous, or other people of colour, gender-bent variations where the characteristics of the male and female leads of the original text(s) are swapped, etc. The "notable works" section of the article could therefore easily be differentiated based off of the subgenre of JAFF that a particular work falls into. The content section could be expanded further by detailing some scholarship on why JAFF is so popular. Since there are mentions of some of the original novels on this page (Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park), perhaps this page should contain links to the Wikipedia pages on these texts, as well as to the various characters mentioned. The choosing of the "Notable Works" could indicate a bias to particular authors. It is difficult to tell if there is a bias since no reason is given for why certain works have been chosen (beyond the first two on the list - the first JAFF ever written and a JAFF written by a relative of Jane Austen is enough information for them to be considered notable). The content of this article also doesn't address nonpublished fanfiction or where it can be found (e.g. Wattpad). The entry on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies needs to be updated to include that it has been made into a movie.

Tone and Balance: the selection of "notable works" in this article could indicate bias. There is an absence of works from the 1930s-1980s and there is no explanation for why this is. From authors' names alone it is hard to tell whether or not this list is comprehensive in terms of who is writing JAFF - which is a global affair. The article does point out that although JAFF is very popular, it is not accepted by all. These differing opinions are given equal weight in the lead. It might be better if the "notable works" section included information on how these texts have been received by both of these groups rather than just a plot summary.

Sources and References: all texts are cited. Most sources are current. A quick search of the LU library database shows that there are some scholarly, peer reviewed sources that examine JAFF. Since most of these sources refer to newspapers, it would be nice to see more scholarly sources on this page. Most of the sources appear on first glance to be written by Western authors. Given the proliferation of JAFF, there is probably some writing on JAFF that was not done by Westerners. I checked a few of the links and they do work.

Organization and Writing Quality: the writing is clear and concise. There are no glaring spelling or grammatical errors that distract from the article. As stated above, given the amount of JAFF and the variety of genres that it covers, it would make sense for the examples of JAFF to be divided by genre (e.g. sci fi/fantasy, historical fiction, modern adaptation, etc.). There could also be a section on nonpublished JAFF and critiques' appraisals of JAFF. Jane Austen and Sense and Sensibility are mentioned earlier than the location of their links. I would insert a hyperlink when they are first mentioned.

Images and Media: I am not sure if posting the cover of Old Friends and New Fancies complies with copyright. There is a degree of cognitive dissonance caused by the second image; it shows covers of JAFF, but these works are not mentioned in the article itself. If they are important enough to be photographed for an article about JAFF, they should be important enough to include in this list. Given that P.D. James' Death Comes to Pemberley has been adapted into a movie, I would consider it important enough to be on this list. The label of this second image should specify that it encapsulates JAFF, not Jane Austen fiction. The images are appealing and arranged nicely. I would probably include an image of Jane Austen herself as well.

Talk Page Discussion: there does not appear to be any Talk directly related to this page. The article is currently rated start-class, low-importance and could be considered part of Wikipedia's projects on Literature, Women's History, and Women writers.

Overall Impressions: The overall status of this article is incomplete. Given the amount of JAFF and its popularity, this article seems too short. It is nicely written and very concise, but it does not represent the scope of the topic. More information needs to be added regarding how JAFF has been received by the public and critiques. There should be more information provided as to why most of these texts are considered to be important and new ones should be added. I think these works should be categorized based off of genre. Some peer reviewed criticism exists about JAFF, so that source should be included as well. Although there's much that could be improved, this article is well-written and covers some of the major facets of the topic.