User:Lillarih/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Film industry

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it relates to me and what I want to be a part of and learn more about.

Evaluate the 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?
 * Yes, it has an introductory sentence that describes the film industry clearly.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead has a brief description of the major sections listed.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, the information in the lead is present within the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise with its delivery.
 * 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, all content within the article is film-related.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No. All "recent" information is cited from 2019 or 2022.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Missing 2023 stats.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, it talks about underrepresented topics.
 * 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.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Yes.
 * 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?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No. Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes.
 * 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.)
 * No.
 * 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?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Images and Media:
 * 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.
 * 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?
 * None.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Not to my knowledge.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * N/A.
 * Overall impressions:
 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's overall status is reliable but outdated.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths are: good grammar, well-typed, great layout, reliable sources, and informative.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It should be up to date with 2023 B.O stats and other info.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well-developed.