User:MackenzieOliver/Evaluate an Article

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

Everything I Know About Love

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.)

I've chosen this article to evaluate because I was surprised at the small amount of information available on this page - Everything I Know About Love is one of my favorite books and it's gained a lot of traction in the media recently as an almost "trend setting" memoir focused on contemporary women's experiences with adolescence and exploring their sexuality. I think having readily accessible information on books that pioneer their genres is important, especially when it comes to bringing attention to young female authors (an often overlooked community).

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: The lead does include an introductory sentence that describes the object in reference of the page, along with a disclaimer at the top that explains how some people might be confused and need to be redirected to other pages that discuss things with similar titles. There aren't many major sections (which I suppose limits the ability of the lead to include a brief description of the article's major sections). There is no information in the lead that is not present in the article, and is not too concise or detailed: likely because it's barely there at all! Content: "The article's content (however little) is relevant to the topic, although some of the recognition for the book has not been updated recently (there's awards won that haven't been logged). It's not as much that there's content missing, but rather that there's a lot more that can be added: but I have yet to see any that doesn't belong. I don't find that the article fits one of Wikipedia's equity gaps in its fullest definition, but I always want to bring attention to contemporary female authors, especially those who are normalizing the free discussion of female sexuality and adolescence."Tone and Balance: "The article is neutral: rather than saying things like 'Everything I Know About Love is a great book', it says things like 'It was nominated for a National Book Award and was a NYT Bestseller.' It leaves the positive reviews to be implied and assumed, rather than claimed biased-ly. It tends to focus on the UK press of the book, which I think can be improved through the inputting of information regarding the success of the book and the author in other countries and through translation - which would fill the lack of 'minority and fringe viewpoints'."Sources and References: The facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information: the sources come from publishing presses, which stand up to Wikipedia's expectations for reliable and trustworthy sources. However, I find that if you did some digging there would be a lot more sources readily available on the topic that can add helpful information to the page. The sources are thorough, but surface level: just stating the facts as they are. I'd like to find some more sources that discuss the book as a text, rather than just talking about the awards the book was nominated for and won. There are a few journal publications on the book that I've found as opposed to the author's official website or reviews from book blogs that may be less trustworthy.

https://www.harpercollins.com/products/everything-i-know-about-love-dolly-alderton?variant=32128345571362

https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA782662659&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=15538095&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=seat57527&aty=ip Organization and Writing Quality: "What little information is readily available on the page is well written and worded correctly - I haven't noticed any apparent plagiarism or copyright problems, but if I were to attempt to improve this article I would likely double check the word choice of the previous editors. There are no spelling or grammatical errors, and the two sections that do exist on the page are organized properly and clearly."Images and Media: "The article includes one image of the cover of the book being spotlighted, but it is the original UK cover as opposed to the more recent and widely distributed United States cover. If I were to improve this page I would likely adjust the image to be more realistic to the cover that most consumers will buy and own. The image is not captioned, but rather sits above a list of stats and information regarding the book that although correct, is pretty surface level. I would potentially add a photo of the author to this page as well, solely to 'put a face to the name'."Talk Page Discussion: "The talk page is blank - the only information stated is that the article is rated Start-Class and that it's listed under the 'Books' Wiki Project."Overall Impressions: "The article's overall status is decent: although there is little information, the information that is there is well worded, accurate, and reliably cited. I'd say the article's strengths are in the Reception tab: I think more book pages should have sections like that. I think the overall weaknesses are just the small amount of information readily available. I would say that the article is completed, but needs to be fleshed out: it could be more well developed."