User:Jazm16nn/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)New Moon (novel)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I really enjoy the Twilight series, and already know a lot about it. It matters because it informs on a very popular book during its time of release. My preliminary impression was that it was a well-written article and gave good information on the book.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section of the article provides a good overview of the content. If a reader was looking for information on this topic, the first sentence gives away what the topic is. The lead is concise and contains information that is covered in the article. There is nothing irrelevant, and gives a good overview.

The article's content is relevant to the topic, and there is just enough information in each section without providing anything unnecessary. I believe it is up to date, as the book came out in 2006 and I am not sure if any news has come about as of recent. The article has been updated to cover information on the movie as well, which came out in 2009. I do not believe any content is out of place, and I don't think any is missing either.

The article is neutral, speaking about different opinions on the books and addressing critics as well. The article is able to address critics without giving a certain opinion on whether or not the writer thinks these critics are correct. Many sides are addressed. The tone also is consistent with a very informative tone.

There are many sources throughout the article, which still have working links. They do all come from 2011 or earlier, which means they might not be up to date. There seems to be a diverse selection of sources with a variety of different information and many different authors. Not a lot of them are scholarly or peer-reviewed articles, but mostly interviews and other sources of that nature.

The article is well organized and written, with clear sections that make sense and language that is easy to digest. There also seem to be minimal spelling and grammar errors as I did not find any. I felt it was written in a way that makes it easy to read, and the organization makes the information easy to understand.

There is one image in the article showing the cover of the book, which I think is sufficient enough for this topic. It is well labeled and does not seem to infringe on any copyright regulations.

The Talk page on this article simply discussed typos in the books as well as fixing external links that may have been wrong.

Overall this article was good, and holds importance in Wikipedia interests as it is written by a female author and classified as children's literature. I believe it is well developed and does not really need much improvement.