User:Ltomohara/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Julia Roberts

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

With her large success in her acting career, Julia Roberts has exerted a significant influence on the portrayal of women in media. Having grown up watching her films, I thought it would be interesting to evaluate her article to examine how it depicts her and if it aligns with my personal characterization of her. My initial impression is that this article is strong and contains a lot of verified information about her, but I'm not surprised because her prominence has caused a lot of media to be produced about her.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

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.

The lead is concise, and has an introductory sentence that clearly describes Julia Roberts. While it includes relevant information, listing Roberts' major films and projects, it does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

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.

The article's content is relevant and up-to-date since it recognizes all of Roberts' noteworthy projects and awards, up to recent ones in 2022. It is organized by sections and chronologically, starting with Roberts' early personal life and transitioning into her professional life and her later success. Since it portrays the significance of Roberts, the article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps by bringing attention to prominent actresses.
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or 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.

The article has a neutral point of view, and no claims appear heavily biased. It presents all of Roberts' endeavors and accomplishments in a balanced and straightforward manner, so no views are overrepresented or presented as a persuasion. It demonstrates that as a woman and a minority, Roberts was able to overcome barriers to reap success and pursue her passions.
 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

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.

A multitude of sources are utilized in the article, and they are thorough and current, but they are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors because most sources are written by similar news reporting agencies. While these are major and notable news networks, there could be better sources available such as peer-reviewed articles. However, the links work.
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

The article is concise, clear, easy to read and mostly is error-free in terms of grammar. In addition, it is well-organized because it is divided into sections based on a chronology of Roberts' timeline.
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media
The images enhance our understanding of the article, are well-captioned, adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and are staggered so that the balance between images and text make for a visually appealing presentation.
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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.

The article is rated a B-class article and is a part of the Biography, Georgia, and Women WikiProjects. In the talk page, there is discussion of creating a separate article for her filmography because it is so extensive, which differs from how we've talked about it in class because I originally believed the talk page to be merely for edits in the original article and not for creating a whole new article.
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions
The article is overall solid, reliable, and accurate. Its strength is that its information is presented in a concise and organized way, but it can be improved in its diversity of sources, because the types of sources are all similar and do not necessarily represent more diverse perspectives. However, the article is overall well-developed.
 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting