User:Mattwiki049/Evaluate an Article

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

Nausicaa of the Valley of the wind

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 really enjoyed the film and I know that many people are aware and passionate about the movie. There is already a lot of information and many people have contributed to the article. I do see there is a lack of historical context and historical impact on modern culture.

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.) {| class="wikitable" Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * Evaluate an article
 * Evaluate an 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.


 * The introductory sentence is concise and does give basic facts about the film, but does not tell the genre or basic synopses.
 * Though it begins to define itself by discussing other iterations that might be confused this specific film, it doesn't provide a description of the following major sections.
 * The lead doesn't detail the themes of the film and though it gives the voice actor's names for the Japanese film, it doesn't list the voice actor's for the English dub.
 * The lead is concise and talks about the most important facts; the studio that created the film, what the film is based on, and etc. But, the lead fails to create a full summary of all contents and is overly descriptive in terms of voice actors, which can be emphasized later in the page, and fails to bring up deeper meanings of the film that the reader should be aware of to have a good grasp from the lead.

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.


 * Most of the contents are relevant to the film, but most of the contents are mixed with other topics that could have their own section. But if the sections were properly divided, the contents would each be fairly short. One of the contents is based on a specific topic that is relevant, but there are many other aspects of the film that should be given a focus for their overall relevance in the film.
 * Due to the age of the film, 1984, the latest edits look to be up to 2015, without any more information from 2015 to now.
 * I think all content is relevant and there is not any content that is out of place, but I would have liked to see a deeper analysis and look into themes, as well as how it affected society, if at all.
 * No, the article does not touch on socio-economic status and economic barriers, in America or Japan.

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 maintains a neutral stance throughout the film, having no "I" or "we" that discusses a personal experience, but stays as factual as possible.
 * There is a strong bias towards the themes of the film, discussing almost exclusively the environmental themes. There is a lack of other perspectives or possible greater themes that are as important to the film. There is also no mention of smaller viewpoints that may have less evidence to support those stances.
 * The article stays neutral and does focus on specific aspects of the film, but doesn't try to sway the reader to feel a specific way towards the film.

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.


 * With the large following and popularity of the film, there are many reputable sources that are utilized, but there are also smaller independent critics that may have a less-professional opinion.
 * The sources are thorough, taken from the creators of the film and other reputable critics that have analyzed the film. The latest information is taken from 2020 articles that discuss the film, being the latest retrieval of information in 2021.
 * The sources are taken from analytical research papers that give great credibility to the sources, though they seem to not be from a diverse range of researches. The links to the actual research papers being referenced to work and the original sources can be examined.

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


 * The page is well written and has links to the sources that the information is being taken from. It seems to have few to no grammatical or spelling errors, despite having to translate Japanese to English.
 * The page is well organized, but I feel that the sections can be mixed together and would benefit from being re-organized for the reader to find information better.

Images and Media

 * The article includes images that represent the topic and main ideas of the film that can allow the reader to understand the topic without watching the film. The images are well captioned with the information provided to understand the context. The images adhere to copyright regulations and are laid out in a visually appealing way that does not get in the way of the information. I would argue that the article does not have enough images for the reader to gain a better grasp of the film, failing to show images of facts that are relevant.

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 conversations that are in the talk section are mainly composed of opinions of editors and information that they cannot find a source for. There is also a large discussion that says that it will not be added due to the lack of consensus, which is full of personal opinions without many sources.
 * The article has a GA (good article) rating and may not be a good article to work on for this class. It doesn't appear to originate from any educational projects.
 * I would say that Wikipedia prioritizes sources of information and every added opinion need to be supported by a source and this makes every discussion feel like a battle of as many research papers as they can find. When discussing topics in class, it is based on our opinion and there is not always a need to explain our discussions with a research paper to prove our ideas.

Overall impressions

 * The article deserves its GA rating and is a culmination of many editor's inforamtion gathering from reputable, professional sources.
 * The article is strong when talking about the production process and the studio that has created the film. It also discusses many of the interations of the films and what stories inspired it. It gives a detailed background of the film's development.
 * The article is in need of diversity of the perspective and themes of the film. It can also use some re-organizing to focus its information. The topics are often jumbled and proper sectioning will help make some of the contents clearer to read. There is also a need to emphasizes relevant topics of the film that are absent from the current article
 * I would say that the article is complete, but could be polished. It has a strong base but is clearly the result of many people contributing to the topics without adjusting hte page for the new information coming into the article.

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
 * }