User:Hoyae24/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an Article
The book And Tango Makes Three was brought to my attention because of how controversial the book has been in the United States public education system. There has been an uproar of controversies in regards to books that have homophobic tendencies; however, this story simply validates homosexual relationships and families with same-sex parents. This book provides a solution in which it makes it simpler for parents to introduce the important concept of homosexuality to their children. Critics of the book believe in the notion that this serves as propaganda of homosexual tendencies and that the book was written to persuade younger audiences but this is obviously not the case. Instead, this book promotes an inclusive environment in society, using animals to help kids learn that non-normative relationships are accepted within society and are just as similar as that of a heterosexual relationship.

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 does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead provides a short and concise explanation of the rest of the article, including a brief description of the major sections. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The lead is concise in exhibiting only crucial details presented throughout the rest of the article.

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 articles content is relevant to the two crucial topics which are the book itself and the controversies regarding the book in the United States due to its presentation of same-sex relationships among animals. The content is up -to-date as it presents other articles that are associated with the book along with references that are as recent as of 2019.

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 article provides us with a neutral point of view. The claims of the article support the text as a text that promotes the inclusivity of homosexual relationships rather than the text promoting that it serves as a text that advocates for homosexuality. The article brings up scholarly viewpoints alongside viewpoints from families that protested the books meaning. The article focuses more so on the scholarly position; however, brings up claims throughout the article made by critics of the book.

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 the facts of the article are backed up by reliable secondary source of information. Sources are current and reflect available literature on the topic at hand. Sources are written by a diversity of authors, writing for the likes of the American Library Association and The School Library Journal. Links are functional.

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 well-written and concise and clear. The way the article is organized and how it is broken down into section reflects the topic at hand. Topics are presented in a chronological order allowing for more clarity for the reader.

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
The article includes one image of the cover of the book And Tango Makes Three. This article could have included images of the authors Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson along with the illustrator Henry Cole to help give the reader of the article a better sense of where the book is coming from. The sole image is well captioned with a concise and simple statement of the picture being the first edition cover of the book. The image in the article complies with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law. For a children's book I do not see any other way of incorporating more images that would comply with United States copyright law; therefore, having one image is suffice for this article.

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
In review of recent posts on the talk page of And Tango Makes Three, most conversations are in regard to the restructure of certain sections of the article along with limiting confusion of specific wording and unnecessary language. This article is a part of three different WikiProjects: Children's literature, LGBT studies and Novels. For Children's literature, this article is rated start-class and is noted to be of high-importance. For LGBT studies this article is rated start-class. Finally, for novels, this article is rated start-class and is noted to be of low-importance. This article is similar in what we have discussed in class, especially for the WikiProject in regards to LGBT studies and Children's Literature. In these projects they focus on ensuring factual coverage on LGBT related issues while improving coverage on children's literature in the world of Wikipedia. In class, we have discussed how the American public education system is challenging children's literature related to the LGBTQ+ community. On the other hand, Wikipedia takes a different approach with their goal, which is noted in their WikiProjects of Children's literature and LGBT studies, of increasing coverage on the topics at hand.

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
The article contains a wealth of different views and perspectives on the topic written. In review of the talk page, there are no constant arguments between fellow wikipedians and the talk page shows trends of improvement over time for the article in terms of clarity, NPOV, and language usage. As I noted in my reception suggestions, this article has room for improvement in the perspectives of who challenges the book. I personally believe that there should be more point of views from an international perspective on the book as this book has not only been challenged in the United States. Essentially, in assessing the article, I find that this article is well developed in its presentation of information.

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: