User:Ilee679/Evaluate an Article


 * 1) I read the Frankenstein Authorship Question article. I don’t think lot of the article was relevant to the article title. There were moments in the article that strayed too far off topic. One example of this was in Chronology and the article started talking about the horror novel Zastrozzi. It went too deep into detail and I found that distracting. Throughout the article, I was also caught up in the “wordiness” of the article.


 * 1) I don’t think the article is very neutral. It was clear that the author believed that Shelley should have gotten more credit and that Frankenstein was written by two authors.
 * 2) Most of the citations in the References work and the citation numbers in the article works. However when I clicked on reference 12, it lead me to a Boutell ad.
 * 3) Due to the Boutell ad, each fact is not referenced with an appropriate and reliable reference. This causes the article to lose some of its credibility. Many of the sources are not from reliable journals. One of the references, “The Thinker’s Garden” which is a website dedicated to fans of history fiction. This may bring on a biased view.
 * 4) There were other readers who did not believe in the credibility of this article. They brought up that the article title is not relevant to the article itself. This writer states, “The article supposedly refers to the question of how much the authorship of Frankenstein can be attributed to P.B. Shelley. As long as authors continue to write concerning the amount Shelley contributed, the question as to the authorship and amount authored by each Shelley continues” (Littleolive oil).