User:HistoryKrymz/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Book censorship

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because in my last class we were discussing teh banning of books. Overall the article looks good but I can see that it is missing a some information.

Evaluate the article
The lead section- This summerizes the main idea of Wikipdeia page very well. It give a broad overview of what censorship means. It could go into more detail of what Book banning is and not only that it happens. This article was not overly detailed, but missing some information.

The content- This article breaks down different ways of censorship in the Methods category. The examples that the article is using are very good but they are not up to date the lastest date is in 2016. I dont think its missing to much information but there could be more information added, that it has missed. This article focuses on more the race issue and dosent touch on the issue of the LBGTQ+ community. So it lacks a broad interpertation of book censorship.

The Tone- The tone of thsi article is very netrual, and doesnt seem to be pushing an agenda on the reader. He was neither for or against teh censorship of books.

The Sources- Most of the refernces were secondary and they were not acedemic. There were alot of .org and .com references. There were about 10 out of 50 reliable sources because they were reviewed. This article needs work of the sources and they need to find more peer read articles.

The writting quality- It was very clear and easily understood. There didnt seem to be grammer issues, and I was able to read it and not feel I needed to change the wording. The way it was orginazed was very helpful to understand the whole idea.

Images- There were not a lot of images. There were three and one was a graph. There have been events in history where you could show it in pictures.There are current event as well, this article was lacking in this department

Talk- There has been no activity on the talk page. This article needs help because its at a C level. Teh last person to edit it was in 2020.

Overall- I like this article because there is a place for improvment, it is interesting but it needs more information.

~