User:Kmartinez137/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article (A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo)
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article to evaluate because I had heard of the controversy surrounding this book when it first came out.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It seems to touch on them, however, I feel that it is relatively light on outlining the public response to the book.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead seems to relatively concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article does seem to be neutral for the most part. However, there are portions in the analysis in particular that lack proper citation, making it difficulty to determine the author's neutrality and reflect underlying bias. In particular the lines "Jill Twiss was hoping for a bit of satisfaction or contentment for those kids when reading about two same-sex bunnies marrying each other. The book takes a position against laws and actions against LGBTQ rights. There could be missed themes because of the partisan aspect the book conceptualizes. These themes consist of respect, approval, and equality," seem to paint the book in a negative light for its supposed partisanship.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Noted in the above response.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? I feel that all viewpoints are relatively balanced.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? In the analysis section, it seems that the author is attempting to persuade the reader to analyze the book in a particular manner without much backing with evidence.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? For the most part, it seems to be, however, there are a few citations (notably 14,15,16,17) that are not.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources do appear to be mostly thorough.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? As stated in the first response, most do, however, some are not properly cited.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is mostly clear, however, there are a few sentences that could be more easily readable.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, there are few minor errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it does appear to be.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There seems to be contention with how the author has phrased "positive" and "negative" reviews, wording, and suggestions for paraphrasing.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated B-class. Yes, it is part of multiple. (eg WikiProject Books, WikiProject Children's Literature, WikiProject Comedy, WikiProject LGBT Studies etc)
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It seems to give equal weight to all perspectives, which we do in class but there seems to be more emphasis on neutrality.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It is rated B-class, which I believe is justifiable. There are improvements that could be made but solid throughout.
 * What are the article's strengths? I think it clearly laid out and gets to the point.
 * How can the article be improved? It seems to wordy at several points, which can make the writing harder tor read.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say that it is adequately developed overall.

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: