User:Hestera nmac3108/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: Witch (Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I used to be a fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I noticed the category listed on the C-class articles page as I was browing the list and decided that it would be a good choice for me as it is a subject I have some knowledge about and interest in.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The lead section of this article includes an introductory sentence that describes the episode and season number in which this episode appeared along with the title of the series, so it succinctly describes the article's topic. The lead does not contain a brief description of the article's major sections. Instead, it gives some background information on the premise of the series and a brief description of the episode's plot; this information is not included anywhere in the rest of the article. The inclusion of the background information does not seem to belong in the lead for this article; instead, readers could follow the link to the main Buffy the Vampire Slayer page (included in the first paragraph of the lead) in order to locate information on the premise of the series. The additional information makes the lead overly long, especially in comparison to other articles about BTVS episodes.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article contains a plot summary, notes about the episode's production, and information about the broadcast and critical reception of the episode, all of which are relevant and comparable to other articles in the same category. After comparing the article to similar articles in the same category, the content appears to be up-to-date (the show was cancelled in 2003). I did not note any information that was missing, nor does the article address any equity gaps or underrepresented populations.

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
The plot summary could probably use some clean up as far as neutrality is concerned, I think. It looks like the editor allowed some opinion about what the characters are thinking and feeling to creep into the writing in a couple of places. One character is described to be "crushed" and Buffy is described as trying to get back to her normal, "happy" life. Otherwise, the rest of the article appears neutral and relays information about the episode in a factual manner with articles cited in support. There are multiple reviews listed in the reception section; several critics' positive opinions are balanced with one more negative review of the episode and a couple had both positive and negative things to say about the episode.The article does not try to persuade the reader if the episode was good or bad and I think it does a good job of presenting a range of critics' opinions.

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?
 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
All of the links in the references section still work, though one now links to the Wayback machine, and the articles on the BBC website are no longer updated. Those two pages contain broken links, but links from the article to the pages still work. The retrieval date on each of the references is listed as 2013. The sources are all older, but since this episode was broadcast in 1997 there may not be many current sources available. I think it's possible there are more sources out there.

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
The article is easy to read in my opinion. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors (I did notice and fix one in another BTVS episode page I looked at while evaluating this one). The organization of this article follows the same pattern of plot/production/reception that other articles in its category follow. I think the plot summary could use some work, but that might just be a question of style. I see several places where extraneous words ("somewhat") could be cut.

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 no images included in this article. However, the talk page indicates that an image was removed from the article because it did not follow Wikipedia's fair use rules.

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
The talk page contains one lengthy explanation of why a section discussing censorship in the German-dubbed version of the episode was inappropriate and therefore removed. phrase "Nazi-like" was removed from the article. The other section on the talk page is the previously-mentioned section about the removal of an image from the article. This article is a part of the Television, Buffyverse, Episode coverage and Horror Wikiprojects. It has been rated c-class for these projects. I'm not sure I understand the third question; that may be because the article I chose to evaluate was not a good choice as related to our class discussions.

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
To me, the sources for this article seem limited. There are six listed, and the production and reception sections seem short. I'm not sure if that is because material that may have once been accessible for critical reviews is no longer available or not. If I were to choose to improve this article, I would check to see if there are any scholarly articles discussing the episode, at fifteen years past the cancellation of the series and as groundbreaking as BTVS was often considered to be, it seems there could be more critical material out there. I think the article might be underdeveloped.

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: