User:Juliedo1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Everything Everywhere All at Once

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the article because I like the movie and I resonated with it as it's a good representation of the immigrant story and the generational trauma of Asian-Americans.

Evaluate the article
For the fact that this article is about the movie "Everything Everywhere All At Once", I think that the first sentence did a good job explaining what this is as it's hard to put a synopsis into a sentence. Though it didn't have a clear outline, as I was reading the lead section, I could imagine how the article would be divided. It was a pretty good summary of the article, everything mentioned in the section was further explained later on. However, there are bits of information that I find redundant, like the sentences about the film's inspirations and initially wanting to cast Jackie Chan. I feel like these are not really relevant and cutting them can make the lead section more concise.

The sections other than the lead section included in the article are Plot, Cast, Production, Themes, Music, Release, and Reception, which I think are all necessary when talking about a film. The plot section was done fairly well, I didn't see any analyses relating to the audience's interpretation of the movie. It is very detailed, which I think it's a good thing because a Wikipedia page shouldn't be "spoiler-free" because it's supposed a synthesized article of everything related to the topic. The cast section was adequate, it gives one-sentence descriptions about the characters and who played them. The main characters were listed in bullet points while the more minor ones were mentioned in a paragraph. Within the production section, there are a few sub-sections of Development, Casting, Filming, and Visual Effects. The development and casting sub-sections include many quotes from the actor as well as the director while the filming and visual effects sub-sections are fairly short. I once saw a video on YouTube about how the visual effects were made and I think that having a nod to that would make the article more well-rounded. It would be more cohesive to combine the music section with this as a sub-section as I think it's also a part of the production. Also, considering how this movie won Best Editing, having a section about the editing process could make it more relevant. The themes section quoted a lot of critics and news articles, which I think actually gave the article a variety of perspectives and viewpoints. The release section is concise and easy to understand. The reception in turn is very long and divided into 4 sub-sections: Box Office, Critical Response, Legacy and Cultural Impacts, and Accolades. I think that the Box Office sub-section was reflected accurately. The critical response and legacy and cultural impacts sub-sections used lots of quotes from different sources. Though the article used superlative phrases like "the best science fiction movie," they are usually direct quotes from multiple articles outside of Wikipedia. The accolades section was pretty short in comparison to the amount of praise that was mentioned throughout the article, however, there is a suggestion for a different Wikipedia article that's dedicated to listing the movie's nominations and awards. The sub-section included the opinion that the film's win Best Picture for Oscars 2023 was controversial but didn't mention Jamie Lee Curtis' win for Best Supporting Actress stirred up different opinions. Overall, the content was okay, some sections I believe are better than others.

The tone of the article was quite neutral. Because of its heavy use of quotes from outside sources, I think that the tone was factual as superlative phrases came from other articles. I feel like the article leaving out different opinions on Jamie Lee Curtis winning while including other actors' wins and the controversial opinion on the film's winning Best Picture made it look pretty biased, as many believe that Jamie didn't deserve the win in comparison with other nominations in the category. The article should represent multiple viewpoints on the matter. Though I don't feel like the article was trying to persuade or pushing for a side, it contains many highly acclaim articles towards the movie while only mentioned 2 reviews that criticized the film. To be fair, this might be a bias from me because I like the film a lot and so I didn't feel like it's trying to convince me. Other people who knows nothing of the film might think differently.

The information seems like they are heavily backed up with sources, with each paragraph having at least 1 citation. The article used 138 sources, which mainly come from different news outlets. There appears to be a wide range of outlets, from The Hollywood Reporter to The Wall Street Journal. I couldn't find any peer review sources, which though makes it not so reliable, the article's main focus is on the movie, so I doubt that we can find anything peer review, especially since the film was just recently released in 2022. Some of the sources included were interviews with people who made the film, which I think made the source more reliable, but less objective. Though the sources were fairly strong, some are not reliable, such as X formerly known as Twitter and Amazon. I expected A24 to be listed in the references, but surprisingly I couldn't find it. Including A24 would have made the article more biased as A24 produced the film. There are some irrelevant sources, such as an article talking about how the Oscar had too many Will Smith jokes. Most of the sources still work to this day as I anticipated since the film and most of these articles were written in the past 2 years.

The article was very organized. Though it was long, which can tire people out, I think all the information was relevant to the topic. The music subsection can be merged with the production section since I think it's still a part of the production, but other than that, I think the article was error-free and didn't need much change in terms of organization.

The article included a few images relating to the section. In total, there are 5 photos in the article. Though that's not a lot of pictures, I think that with an article this length, it's enough since adding more photos also means lengthening the article. Each photo used includes a small description to both explain the photo and give context to how it's relevant to the section. I thought the accolades subsection would include a table on all of the film's nominations and wins, but instead, the article linked the subsection to another Wikipedia page that is dedicated to listing their achievements, which I think is very smart as the article is long enough already. The images are just photos of the people behind the film so they're not visually pleasing in terms of good illustration or graph but they provide readers a deeper understanding of the topic.

The talk page is very lively as I've seen long conversations of people removing and adding information to the article. The most recent topic I saw on the talk page was how the article leaves out the theme of queer identity, which is one of the plots that drives the film. Though it was mentioned in passing, the themes section didn't include sources and opinions about this theme, even when the user put a list of news articles that discussed this theme. There are some discussions about the use of superlatives and the source's reliability which I think is really helpful for the article as I myself had those thoughts while reading. A user commented on the talk page, saying that the article did a good job conveying the movie, answering all the who, when, where, what, why, and how questions. Another user, before making an edit, mentioned how they're cutting out unnecessary ableism, which I think not only made the article more concise, but also more respectful to its audience. Many of the comments were very constructive and overall feels like users were trying to improve and not sabotage the article.

Overall, the article did a good job summarizing everything about the film, from the plot to the production to its release and reception. In the end, I had a good time reading this article. I feel like there is a lot of room for improvement, such as removing unnecessary details in the lead section, adding some more perspectives for a more well-rounded article, and reorganizing some sections so that it's more cohesive. Other than that, the article was well articulated, though some parts feel not so neutral, I think that the article tried its best to balance out opinions that are too one-sided. It's a very well-developed article.