User:Moira388/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Peter and the Starcatchers

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I've read this book as a child, so I have some familiarity with it. I chose this article because it is classified as "Stub-Class" and needs a lot of work. While there is a substantial plot summary, very few secondary scholarly sources appear in the article.

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:

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes: references to other books in the series.

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed: includes misconceptions about the book that aren't needed in the lead section.

Content

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.

Is the content up-to-date? Yes.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes. Content that is missing: relevant themes, description of characters, scholarly interpretations, public reception.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Tone and Balance

Is the article neutral? Yes.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes: the article clearly argues that the book is a "reboot" and not a "prequel" of Barrie's Peter Pan without citing scholarly arguments about this claim.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, see above.

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No, the viewpoint that these books are "prequels" is not given much space.

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Yes.

Sources and References

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No.

Are the sources thorough—i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No.

Are the sources current? No.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? No: most of the articles are book reviews and reviews of the play based on the book.

Check a few links. Do they work? No.

Organization and Writing Quality

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? No: it is missing several important sections.

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes: the introductory image.

Are the images well-captioned? Yes.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations? Unsure: the image is under copyright, but it is a book cover that allows readers to recognize the subject of the article in a way that is impossible with mere prose.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Talk Page Discussion

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to present this topic? Conversations addresses inconsistencies between the article's summary and the actual plot of the book.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Stub-Class, WikiProject Novels and WikiProject Children's Literature

How does the way Wikipedia discuss this topic differ from the way we’ve talked about it in class? Wikipedia seeks to clearly define the differences between this novel and Barrie's works, while ignoring the similarities of the fantasy genre.

Overall Impressions

What is the article’s overall status? This article needs a lot of work; it is missing important sections, it lacks sufficient sources, and it introduces a debate that reads as a biased interpretation of the novel.

What are the article’s strengths? The article has a well-written plot summary of the novel.

How can the article be improved? The article needs to reference scholarly authors' opinions rather than interject its own.

How would you assess the article’s completeness—i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is both underdeveloped (with its lack of sections) and poorly developed (with its clear biases).