User:Jeriblank/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The Far Side (Cartoon)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article because I am a fan of this comic, and know a bit about its history and creator. The article is important because it covers a well known (in some circles) cartoon that has made an impression in the western zeitgeist. My initial impression is that the article seems very thorough and informative.

Evaluate the article
Lead section

The first sentence is not a great introduction to the comic as it mostly covers the various publishers over time. This info would be better suited in a different section. The second sentence contains better information as a broad overview of the subject. The lead does contain a bit of the most prominent information from the major sections of the article. The lead ends with an overview of some awards the author has won, which is not expanded upon or given its own subsection like most other wiki articles. Overall I think the lead does a good job of covering a basic summary of the cartoon.

Content

The content of the article is quite good, and covers most of the important aspects of the cartoon. The content is also up to date and includes information on his recent work. I noticed his bibliography is presented in a way different than other articles I've seen, I have to click to expand a section that would be really easy to scroll past without noticing. I don't see any reference to the fact that due to the authors interest in bugs and the animal world a louse - Strigiphilus garylarsoni was named after him, though it is in the "see also" section of the article. This article does not cover a subject that would be in wikipedias equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

The article is certainly neutral and gives an unbiased view of the cartoon. The article covers some of the "controversies" the cartoon has faced, the biggest being what some found to be a questionable mention of Jane Goodall, the article included information on those who thought the comic was in poor taste, and a quote directly from Jane Goodall who enjoyed the cartoon and later collaborated with the author.

Sources and References

The sources and references for this article seem to be well done, I see a mix of old and new which is inline with the timeline of the cartoon. Many of the sources are from the authors books, but they are used to add insight and set the record straight on some things that have been debated about the comic, for instance a section on the notorious "Cow Tools" comic includes quotes from the author, and some more recent discussion in the media. I think the article is thorough with referencing what is out there about the subject, I am not sure there is any real scholarly work on the cartoon, but there has been good coverage of it in the media. Some of the links do not work anymore and could use updating.

Organization and writing quality

The writing is well done and clear and is all in a logical order. I don't see any spelling or grammar issues. The article sections are well done and the sections all make sense for the subject.

Images and Media

There is only one image included in the main box in the top right which is well captioned, I am not sure if it adheres to the copyright regulations as it says it was taken from an amazon book-shop page. I know that the author is very sensitive about his work being online so I am not surprised that there are no other images in the article, however there is a separate page for "cow tools" with the cartoon image included.

Talk page discussion

The first discussion I see is about the criticism section and asking if it is necessary, this comment was from 2015 and the page has incorporated what was in this section into one called "notable cartoons" now. I also see a discussion of the image used, which I stated above I wasn't sure if it conformed to their policy. A user has noted that it is being used under the fair use policy, but without an explication as to why. The article is rated "start class" which is defined as "An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources". I think that is pretty accurate, though I know there is not a plethora of information on the cartoon. This page is part of the comic strips work group and part of WikiProjects Comic. This article differs from what the Wiki Education modules have discussed in its sources, there don't appear to be scholarly sources to pull from for this article.

Overall impressions

I think the article is well done, and includes most of the information that is seemingly known about the comic. The strengths of the article are its description of the themes of the work, and a well done bibliography of the publications. The article could be improved perhaps by adding some more information on its legacy, there is a small section on this but I would think there could be more influential artist out there who would cite the cartoon as inspiration if you can find the sources. Overall like I've mentioned I think it is comprehensive in all the known information on the subject, but there is always room for growth and expansion.