User:Joshua Fogler/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title: Narration
 * Article Evaluation:
 * Article Evaluation:

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


 * Name of article: Narration
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

The reason I chose to focus on evaluating the narration article was twofold. First, I find the topic of narration interesting, it is the driving force behind all fictitious writing. More specifically, I was drawn to the section on Narrative techniques, in particular the stream of consciousness technique. And, secondly, despite the prominence of narration in literature, and other forms of storytelling, the article did not seem to be as well covered as other topics.

Lead[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Yes, the lead includes an introductory sentence that clearly and concisely explains narration and its purpose. This is done in the first paragraph. The article does a good job of explaining narration, its purpose and its uses, on top of which it gives a brief, introductions to each of the main sections. However, these sentences have the potential to be expanded upon, at least a bit. No, the Lead does not include information present in the article. The lead is concise, and possibly a bit too concise. A bit more information could be added to it, such as what narrative points of view will be covered.

Content[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic, and the article seems to be updated quite regularly, with the last update having been last night. There remains an opportunity for more information that could be added to both the Narrative tenses and the narrative techniques sections, particularly to the stream of consciousness and unreliable narrator portions, but, that is because these two sections have their own pages. No, this article deals with narration, and thus does not delve into historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The article does a good job of remaining neutral, and not taking a side, while giving explanations of Narrative points of view. However, there could be more detail regarding both narrative tense and narrative technique. Thus, there are no claims that bias towards a particular position, viewpoints which are overrepresented/underrepresented nor any claims that attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

It appears that many of the sources could be improved. A couple sources do not have a link attached, so, I presume they are books. However, there appears to be a blog used as a source, on top of several other sources which could be better - more reliable, with a couple sources appearing to not be academically inclined. The sources tend to be quite recent, with many from the 2010s. Much more literature, and better literature exists on narration, and this could be brought into use. There could also be more diverse viewpoints used- more diverse sources on forms of narration. The links tend to work, although one link took me to a persian/arabic source, which I found odd, however, it possible someone used the information in that article, despite it appearing quite small.

Organization[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organised - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The article appears to be well organised, broken down into subsections, and quite clear about what each (sub)section plans to explain. This structure and organisation lends itself to an easy to read article. I also, was unable to find any grammatical errors.

Images and Media[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

No images appear in the article.

Checking the talk page[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

I could not find any conversations going on behind the scenes behind the scenes for this article.

Overall impressions[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article's strength lies in its description of narrative points of view, but opportunity remains to improve the sections on narrative tenses and particularly opportunity to improve the section on narrative techniques. As stated, the article appears to be quite complete, in the narrative point of view section, but rather incomplete in the other two sections. Many narrative techniques exist, not simply stream of consciousness and unreliable narrator.

There also appears to be no article for narration in French.


 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 2

 * Article title: Dialogue in Writing
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?: Yes, the content of the article tends to be relevant, however, it is very limited.
 * Is it written neutrally?: Yes
 * Does each claim have a citation?: Each claim does have a citation.
 * Are the citations reliable? The citations are reliable: sources from esteemed writers.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?: No
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?: No


 * Sources

Option 3

 * Article title: persuasive writing
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, however, it does not contain much information.
 * Is it written neutrally? Yes.
 * Does each claim have a citation? No
 * Are the citations reliable? No
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? No
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 4

 * Article title: Meditation (writing)
 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, however, it does not contain much information.
 * Is it written neutrally? Yes.
 * Does each claim have a citation? No
 * Are the citations reliable? No, as there are no sources cited.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? No
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title:
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources