User:Jhulty/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Film criticism

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.)

Why I Chose This Article:

I chose this article as it had an s rank, or a started page that needs a lot of help. Having seen a rank articles before, I was intrigued to evaluate one that is not ranked highly, and see where the differences lie. In my personal life, I tend to watch a lot of movies and love to discuss different movies, plots, premises, characters, and what creates a good film in the eyes of a general consumer of media. Why This Article Matters:

As the digital age continues to set in on mainstream society, more and more movies are being created, too many in fact, to where it becomes important to make sure you're using your time wisely and watching movies that are highly reviewed. Therefore, the discipling of film review, both for journalism and academic disciplines are important to be understood and shared.

My Preliminary Impression of the Article:

This article seems very brief for such a large and important disciple, especially in today's times. Having looked at the history of the page, it appears that no one has touched the page since August, meaning that contributors are not very active, and that it would be a fun article to dive into and possibly edit, as the pushback on many changes would likely be minimal. The page also lacks pictures, which I feel would be a valuable tool to employ on this page to aid in understanding film criticism.

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.)

Lead Section:

The lead section contains a very brief description of film criticism in a mere two sentences. If a reader wanted to have a brief understanding of the topic, they would be drastically underinformed due to brevity featured in the lead section. In the lead section, only one source is featured and no background information is provided on the origins of film criticism. When looking at A rated articles, one can find that the lead sections contain both history and the interconnectedness nature of topics on Wikipedia, with many links to other involved topics.

History:

It seems as though some of this information could be utilized better in the lead to give a brief background, where as this section could dive in deeper to the discipline of film criticism. I believe it would also be useful to show the history of how film criticism has been taught and brought to the mainstream. The history section also only contains information up until the 1940's.

Journalistic Criticism:

This section seems well written and I do not have criticism for it.

Online Film Criticism:

The aggregators section is very short and non descript on the impact that these sources have on the general public. It may be useful to show a picture of the kinds of ratings, specifically these ones, that come up when you google a specific movie. Some sources in this section seem to be biased and may have ulterior motives embedded within them. I think there is a lot of opportunity here to represent how powerful these ratings truly are and possibly find sources that evaluate scores with box office revenue.

Issues and Controversies:

The influence heading feels out of place here and shouldn't be listed under issues and controversies, as influence of film criticism is neither an issue or a controversy. There is also a citation spot, however no citation is provided, meaning that the information cannot be relied on. The formatting under "The "undulating curve of shifting expectations"" header is messed up and not in line with the other text. The female representation portion seems to provide lots of valid information, but I feel like in this section we can bring in many other kinds of issues that have arisen in film criticism, such as racism and LGBTQ+ movies or actors.

Salary:

I think there is an opportunity here to show salaries among film critics who serve as instructors, institutional critics, or journalistic critics in a graph or easier to interpret visual representation, other than one line of text.

Overall Impressions:

This page sure can use a lot of work to compile more general and current information, add media and visual elements, as well as find more areas of interconnectedness to expand upon in the page. The editors don't seem to be too active or involved in the article currently, leaving lots of room for renovation and innovation within the page, in order to get the article rating up from an abysmal S.