User:Knechthouse/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Because I have read and analyzed the Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and enjoyed it.

Evaluate the article
Lead:

The lead is very informative yet concise. The lead explains both the general plot of the story and relevance of the literature piece.

Content:

The article starts off with a section explain the authors motivations for writing the short novella. This section was very interesting and provide valuable insights but I would place this section below the plot and characters sections and above analysis of themes section. The summary section was easy to follow and broke the story up into multiple parts with digestible paragraphs. It convened the plot of the story and includes important plot elements, and characters. The next section is character descriptions which improve comprehension of the plot of the story. I enjoy the depictions of both primary and secondary sometimes nameless characters. The themes explained are current scholarship analyses of this piece. Content includes numerous references to cite necessary information. For the significance of this literature piece, I found this article short. I think this article could include more interpretations and analysis of themes as well as a section discussing the cultural impacts.

Tone and Balance:

The article appears neutral in tone and presents information cited with numerous sources.

Talk page:

The talk page is very active with many valuable contributions. One aspect of the talk page that stands out to me is the homosexual interpretation of the text. I certainly believe this disserves to be included in the article's analysis of theme section. In class, we learned about the historical context of blackmail and how this often had to do with someone's sexuality threatening to be exposed. The potential blackmail scheme is prevalent in the story and the hints of homosexuality have been well documented by today's scholars and interpretations during the time this piece was published.

Overall impressions:

I think that the information that this page included was presented well but I think it could use more information. The talk page has several suggestions for areas to add content to but no one has seemed to actually flush out these ideas yet. I do not think the article is fully developed yet.