User:Kjosowski/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: Ramona (novel series)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article because it falls within the within the scope of children's literature, but is not a topic that could be used in class per the instructions in Canvas. I also wanted to chose an article that I would have some familiarity with, and I grew up reading the Ramona series.

Lead

 * 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?

Lead evaluation
This article has a strong introductory sentence that lets readers know how many books are in the series, who the books are for, who wrote them, and who is the main character is. It does this in a way that is concise and not overwhelming. This article doesn't include a description of the article's major sections, but does link to them in the "Contents" box. This is helpful for user navigation. The final sentence in the lead contains information that cannot be found elsewhere in the article. It would be helpful for readers if this information was expanded on elsewhere. The first, second, third, and final sentences of the lead are concise, and provide important context for the article. The fourth and fifth sentences include information that can be found elsewhere. These sentences could be condensed into one that says something like, "Two books in the series were named Newbery Honor books, and one received the National Book Award."

Content

 * 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?

Content evaluation
Overall the content that is included is relevant and generally up-to-date. There are some areas of the article that could use some work. For example, there is quite a long quote in the "Background" from Cleary that is somewhat distracting, but it is also endearing to read about the creation of Ramona in the author's own words. More background on Cleary could be useful, but readers can also go to the article focused on the author. I don't think the quote from Anita Silvery in the "Background" is necessary; it doesn't really add any information. The section "Ramona's characterization" is essentially all quotes. It would be better to paraphrase here. The "Critical reception" section includes many quotes as well, but they make more sense here as this section is about what others have said about the series. "Adaptations" could use some more details. For example, it doesn't say when the TV series Ramona aired. More information about the characters in popular or material culture should be added. The article also lacks information about publication numbers, various editions, translations, illustrators, and readers and fans across generations.

Tone and Balance

 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
Most information in the article is factually based, and the article doesn't attempt to persuade readers. However, the "Critical reception" section only includes positive reviews of the books. Including a review that isn't favorable would help to balance that part of the article.

Sources and References

 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Facts are backed up by sources; however, I think additional literature is likely available that could provide more depth to the article. Sources are, for the most part, current as far as I am aware. The last link does not seem to link directly to the intended page. Instead, it takes readers to the source homepage where they would then need to search for Ramona and Beezus.

Organization

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

Organization evaluation
The information that is included in the article flows well, and is divided into sensible sections. Fewer quotes would improve the flow of the article even more. As noted in the content evaluation, there are some additional information or sections that would add to the article. Generally, the article is free of grammatical errors. There are some instances where oxford commas are used and others where they are not used, so there is some inconsistency.

Images and Media

 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There is one image of a book cover. It is not captioned. Many more images could be included from the books, especially since they were written across a long period of time. Including images from different editions would help to show the various illustrators who worked on the series. Images of the author could also be included.

Checking the talk page

 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The article is within the scope of both WikiProject Novels, rated as mid-importance, and WikiProject Children's literature, rated as high-importance. It is rated C-Class by both projects. There are couple questions about details from the books. One conversation discusses translations. It doesn't have any responses, and it hasn't been acted on in detail in the article. The conversation with the most responses has to do with merging character pages to this article. It appears that some merging occurred, but not to the extent that was originally intended based on the conversation.

Overall impressions

 * 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?

Overall evaluation
This article is publicly available, but needs work as a C-Class rated article. The strengths of this article is that it covers the major necessary areas of the topic well for the most part. The article's short summaries for each book in the series are just what is needed for that section as there are links to the Wikipedia articles for each book as well. The character list is also very thorough. Of the existing sections, "Ramona's characterization," which is mostly quotes, and "Critical reception," which is all positive reviews, could use the most improvement. I would say the article is slightly underdeveloped. As previously noted, it would be useful to include details about publication numbers, various editions, translations, and illustrators. Sections about readers and fans across generations and popular or material cultural could be added.

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: