User:Ladybug25861/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: The Giving Tree
 * The Giving Tree was my favorite book as a child and I would like to review the themes and concepts of it now that I am older. I learned recently that it has been under scrutiny for setting unrealistic and damaging expectations for women, so I would like to see what people on the Talk page are saying about this.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No, the lead mentions more of the facts about the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * yes, but it does not include much information on the interpretations.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no, it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * the lead is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * for the most part yes, but the article mentions Shel Silverstein's past work for Playboy and a description of his appearance that is not on topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * yes, it is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Silverstein's past work does not need to be there.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes, the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no, I do not feel this article is biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, all of the viewpoints are equally discussed.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no, it does not attempt to do this.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes, the sources sited are from credible people, book reviews, and educational facilities.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes- there is a wide range of scholarly articles, interviews, and newspaper reports.
 * Are the sources current?
 * no, many of the sources are from the 1970's.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes, they work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes, the vocabulary is very easy to understand and the points are made clearly.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * there are no apparent spelling or grammar errors in this article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * the article is well organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * no, the only images are the book cover and a photo of the author.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes, they describe what the photos are.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes, they are all on the right side of the page.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * People are talking about how this is related to songs, movies, and other books. Additionally, people are commenting on gendering the tree as a woman although it is never said that the tree is a woman.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This book is apart of the WikiProject Children's literature. The article is rated "C class".
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The Talk page discusses how the motifs in this book are related to over works across different media that the author completed.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This is a strong article within Wiki, but I do think it could use improvements.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The articles offers many different interpretations.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I feel the section about the authors appearance is pointless and should be removes and I also think the "interpretations" section needs more explanation.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article is underdeveloped, but still better than most of the children's books Wikis out there.

Optional activity
One thing I would like to see added is a better explanation of the "interpretations" section. I love the idea of this section, but the author(s) only offer a one sentence explanation about each interpretations and I feel there is more to be said.


 * Link to feedback: