User:Jhyde127/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link). The Catcher in the Rye
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article because I read it in high school and we discussed many of the reasons why the book is challenged which relates to my writing class now.  Furthermore, I personally did not enjoy the book very much, but I know many people consider it the quintessential coming of age book and thoroughly enjoy it.  I thought that looking at the Wikipedia page could give light to both viewpoints of the positive and negative reviews of the book

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The articles lead includes an introductory sentence that is concise and gives a little background on the book, but does not discuss much about the rest of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does not include a description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The information presented in the lead is expanded on later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and gets across some important information, but lacks description on the major sections of the article.

Lead evaluation
Overall this is a fine lead, with some basic information about the book and some more insightful information regarding the themes and effects of the book. It would be better if it described the major sections of the rest of the article, like plot, interpretations, receptions, and censorship. That way, readers could get a better understanding for what the rest of the article would talk about. Currently, a reader who has only read the lead may think that the article does not discuss the reception of the book at all, which is an essential part of talking about the book.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The content is up-to-date relative to the time when the book was published.  Edits have been made as recently as 2019, pulling information from scholarly sources in the 2010s.  The book was published as a novel in 1951.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? This specific article does not discuss the use of the book in popular culture, but there is a link to an entire article called "The Cather in the Rye in Popular Culture".  There is no content in the article that does not belong, as each section pertains to an important part of the book or its history.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article does a good job of describing both sides of the argument for teaching or banning the Catcher in the Rye.  In the Wikipedia article it presents both sides with the sentence "In 1981, it was both the most censored book and the second most taught book in public schools in the United States."

Content evaluation
The content in this article is very relevant to the topic and is presented in an unbiased and informative way. The content is up-to-date and provides alternate links for the small amount of information that it lacks.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article is neutral.  The analysis of the book is agreed upon as evidenced by the talk page, and both sides of the argument are presented for whether the book should be taught or not.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are not claims that are heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think both viewpoints are represented equally, and facts are presented for the reader to determine a viewpoint for themselves.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article does not attempt to persuade the reader.  It simply gives the information available.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance of this article is great. It is unbiased and does not try and persuade readers. It gives data on the book being banned and taught equally.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources do reflect much of the available literature on the topic, but since there is so much literature on "The Cather in the Rye" it is difficult to use all.
 * Are the sources current? The most recent sources are from about 10 years ago.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources come from news articles, books, and individual authors, but I'm not sure if it uses historically marginalized individuals' articles where possible.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
This article pulls a lot of information from a variety of scholarly sources. One of the article's rules as said in the talk page is no original research. Therefore, to fill in all the relevant information in the article about the book lots of scholarly sources were required. In total there were 61 notes and 3 sources in the bibliography.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? This article is relatively well written.  It is easy to understand and flows nicely.  It is pretty concise too.  In the talk page some people believe that some of the information is out of order, and that more important information should be shifted in the article.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? The only error that I could find in the article is that "mid-century" was written as midcentury.  However, this was used in a quote so the word may have been copied correctly from the quote into the article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is well organized by having sections that reflect the major points on the book.  To make it better organized though, a sentence should be added that maps out the order of the sections that occur later in the article.

Organization evaluation
The organization of the article is good and the sections are arranged in a logical manner

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? One image of the book cover.  The article also contains a link to pictures of the original Catcher in the Rye book.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.  It describes the picture concisely and accurately.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The one image is placed at the top right of the article above the basic information about the book.  This is not only visually appealing but also a sensible place for the picture in the article.

Images and media evaluation
There is only one image for this article, but it fits the necessary criteria and is placed well.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The majority of the talk page discusses the validity of the information in the plot section, and many express their views that the description of themes does not belong in the plot section and should be moved to its own section.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated B and important.  It is within the scope of the WikiProjects Novels.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The talk page does not question the validity of sources, but rather lots of opinions of individuals on the meaning of certain things in the book and interpretations of themes.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page brings up some good points about how the article could be improved. There are some personal views which should not be reflected in the actual Wikipedia page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The overall status is good but not exceptional.
 * What are the article's strengths? Lots of relevant information presented concisely.  The article provides an accurate crash course on the book and will leave readers informed about the basics of the book.
 * How can the article be improved? Add a section about themes and take them out of the plot section.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is pretty well developed.  There are solid evaluations of themes from scholarly sources and the article progresses in a sensible manner.

Overall evaluation
Overall this is a good article but it could be improved by adding to the lead to help with organization, and to add a section on the themes of the book.

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: Talk:The Catcher in the Rye