User:KingDragon739/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Andi Mack

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article was rated C-class in the LGBTQ-related section. I believe that since this article doesn't have anything related to what we discuss in class, it would be a smart idea to include a section about intersectionality or the overall view of LGBTQ representation and how this as a children's show was great for exposing this representation of a marginalized group to heterosexual norms in society.

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.) {| class="wikitable" Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * colspan="2" | Evaluate an article
 * colspan="2" | Evaluate an article

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The topic of the article is clearly stated.


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes, full overview was given of the show and what it was known for how its known for including the first gay character in Disney history


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

No, it does not contain anything not pertaining to the show.


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Concise, its two short paragraphs before it dives into the bulk of the information.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, LGBTQ+ representation can be talked about and how this show was heldful to it especially as a children's show.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Yes


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Not that I notice but, there can be additional sections added to the article.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

As this is a series that only aired for 3 season, it covered a lot of bases within that but i think it could use more of a critical review on the topic rather than just an overview.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?

Yes, its neutral toned!


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, after my quick skim i do not notice any biased information


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I would say the LGBTQ aspect is underrepresented here and could be incorporated into their reception section of the article


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

Yes, but it's lightly skimmed over and go into depth.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

All facts are backed by sources.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

It shows that the topic was covered by others and research was put into the article while having over 40 citations


 * Are the sources current?

The sources range from 2016 to 2020.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

The sources range in variety of academic sources and professionally posted sources.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Some were random but most were from recognizable sources.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * 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-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The article is well written and is obvious effort was put into it but like with everything, it could use some improvements. No major spelling/grammar issues that i noticed but is well organized.

Images and Media

 * 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?

Not many media options within the article which i could possibly improve on.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * 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?

Organized conversation is being held on the talk page and is being used for clarification so i can probably communicate with the editors on there to see what else they would like improved.

Overall impressions

 * 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?

Overall, throughly put together article. Unbiased and informal information within but could be improved adding some more prominent social issues that this helped make progress through and is what i choose to focus on. I would say the article is well developed but again, can be updated.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }