User:Hhawe1/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: Little Red Riding Hood (1997 film)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Yes, this lead includes an introductory sentence that is short and accurate. It briefly describes the context for the story and provides a cinematography history of the film. The lead is simple, but could be improved by adding the cinematographer for the film, Scott Ramsey.


 * 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

This content is up-to-date and its information remains relevant to the topic. The specific sentence concerning the huntsman requires more context and/or background information before simply being placed into the article. If the author of this page desires to mention the huntsman, a note to the different adaptations and a reference directed toward the literature value of Kaplan's film would be helpful to the reader in order to maintain relevancy and authenticity.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

This article leans heavily against the innocence of Little Red. I would not consider this article to be neutral, because the author of this page states as fact several scenes in Kaplan's film which are designed to be open to interpretation. The article presents its own analysis for the film despite Wikipedia's policy to remain unbiased. Word choice like "in fact", "even after", and "thus portrayed" are all examples of stating "truth" that is, in actuality, obscure and indefinite.


 * 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 sources used in this article primarily come from one source of information, IMDb. The link for Timour Bourtasenkov sends the user to an article on the Carolina Ballet, which is the dance studio for which Bourtasenknov works, rather than his own personal site. An improvement on the article would also be to include a citation or link that can direct the user to the movie itself rather than just the film's review cites.


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

This article is choppy and incomplete. The sentence structure remains simplistic and basic throughout the entire article. However, there are a few instances where the author tries to use advanced word choice. The article uses words like "androgynous" and "anthropomorphized" to make it seem more educated or give it more academic legitimacy. Unfortunately, the sporadic, sophisticated word choice mixed with the article's basic sentence structure makes its feel disjointed and sound out of place. However, overall the article itself seems to be well-organized and is divided into the correct major sections of Plot, Cast, Reception, ect.


 * 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

There is one picture used in this article and it is captioned "film poster". While this seems insufficient for an entire article, due to the article's length and its nature, I would argue that this is indeed satisfactory or at the very least reflective of its quality of literature.


 * 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

There is little to no conversation on this Wikipedia's talk page. It does, however, fit within the guidelines for the WikiProject concerning films. The only complaint on this page was Ekrop 1, who commented on the lack of citation for the article.


 * 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

I would say that this article needs a lot of work to be up to Wikipedian standards. Its style of writing ought to be more consistent. There should be less analysis and more presentation of the facts. The citations should be more varied and should direct the user to the primary source, David Kaplan's film. I would argue that this article is poorly developed.


 * 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: