User:LorraineRodz/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The Jungle Book (2016 film) User:LorraineRodz/EvaluateArticle

Feminist rhetoric User:LorraineRodz/EvaluateArticle

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
User:LorraineRodz/EvaluateArticle The reason I chose this article is due to a school project and it is a good article so far.

User:LorraineRodz/EvaluateArticle I have chosen to evaluate this article because the topic interests me

Evaluate the article
User:LorraineRodz/EvaluateArticle. The article summarizes the article and topic. It provides links to references and it mentions many aspects of the film such as location, actors and technology used.

Lead section

This article introduces the topic steadily and accurately. The lead includes a brief description of the main topic but it also includes another type of definition. The reason why it included the other type was for the reader not to get confused. Even though it was done for the reader to not get confused it was still unnecessary for the definition to have been added. Overall, the introduction to the article was detailed and informative.

Content

This article goes into depth about the topic. It includes the background aspects of the topic. The article includes a heading talking about definition and goals when it comes to the topic. There were aspects of that part where it should have been included in the History part. Implications part should have been included in the definition and goals section.

Tone and Balance

The article was neutral. However when it came to the headings and subheadings there were some sections were they should have been mashed together. The article definitely was very informative and it focused mainly on the history and the significance of the topic. The article accurately depicts the information. It also includes different aspects to it.

Sources and References

All facts seem to be backed up by reliable sources. There are many different sources which is a good thing the article offers. All sources pertain to the topic it is focusing on. Most of the sources are from journals. The article offers many sources which great.

Organization and writing quality

The article is well written. There are a few subheadings which should be switched. Other than that, the article is very detailed. This article is informative. It explains the topic really well.

Images and Media

The article included two images which did not make it overwhelming. Perhaps to improve, the author could have added another image. Maybe the image could have been added in the themes. The first image could have a better description to it. The images seem to adhere to wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Talk page discussion

On the talk page discussion there was not much information. There was mention of the neutrality of the article. There were mentions of the last paragraph. The author was attentive and responded to the feedback. The feedback was fair.

Overall impressions

Overall, it was a great article. It was neutral and it was mostly was arranged well. The article was concise. The headings and subheadings contained detailed information. The author was very attentive to the feedback as well.

LorraineRodzLorraineRodz (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)