User:Monte141/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)
 * A Little Princess
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This was on the class list of articles to review, but not one that I chose to actually update. I loved the books and movies growing up, so I felt knowledgable enough to evaluate the Wikipedia page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * It does accurate describe about the novel.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does not give a description of the major sections, rather it focuses on the novel's publication and its later influence as a children's book.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It does give publication information that is not addressed later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I would say it is a bit over detailed. I think that the publication history could be touched upon, then expanded its own paragraph further down.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead could be reworked slightly. There is a lot of information about the publication and exact title, which is helpful, but could be added as its own paragraph further down. I would also add a brief summary about the book itself. Just looking at the lead, one would not know what A Little Princess is about. I would keep the second paragraph in the Lead noting how influential the book is, as it helps to showcase its importance in children's literature.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. It covers the plot of the book, the source materials, and adaptations.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * There is one mention of a 2004 Broadway play being in production. That may be an area to update. As for currency, I'm seeing information up to 2017.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Many important works have areas that go over the themes of a book and how it has influenced literature. It would be nice to see this here.

Content evaluation
The content seems accurate and current. There are a few places where one may want to update (the Broadway section), and the editor may want to search if there are other adaptations that the original authors missed. The plot summary is detailed, linking out to relevant pages. As mentioned in the previous question, it would be nice to see a bit more about the book within the article (such as themes, a character list, and its influence on literature).

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * For the most part it seems neutral, though there are a few instances where some objective language sneaks in. For example, in the adaptations some are labeled "very faithful" to the original story. I find the "very" to place an emphasis on the 'correctness' of the original version.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I do not see any biased claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I do not see any viewpoints that are over- or underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * There is an emphasis on the changes each adaptation makes compared to the original story. I think this makes sense, though, as one would want to know if one were watching or reading that adaptation what is different between the original material and the adaptation.

Tone and balance evaluation
There does seem to be a slight preference for the original material, as changes in adaptations are pointed out and there are some mildly objective words used ("very faithful" "significant changes"). Beyond that, the tone is neutral and informative. If there are underrepresented viewpoints, I am, unfortunately, unaware of them.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are a few paragraphs that do not have a citation, which goes against the Wikipedia training that advised to have a citation per paragraph. Most of these areas are either ones that describe the book (which may not need citations because they are part of the book the page is about) or adaptations that do not have their own pages and presumably the authors did not find exact, scholarly sources on.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are a good mix of journal articles, Library of Congress records (for information on the editions), and websites about the adaptations. Some of the references have little paragraphs explaining them, which I found to be helpful.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The most recent links are from 2016, so they seem recent.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links seemed to work. One may seem like it won't, but users must click the Archived link to find the Wayback's archival of the website.

Sources and references evaluation
Most information is backed up by references. A couple of the website links are for promotional website, which are not allowed by Wikipedia standards. However, I do see why the authors would put them in, as they verify an adaptation of the story that may not have scholarly work on it. Because these references are only used in the adaptations area, I would personally keep them. For such an influential and popular children's book, I have to imagine there is more scholarly information out there about A Little Princess that is not utilized or linked to on this page. This could be a gap in the page's content.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is easy to follow and concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not see any spelling or grammar errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I particularly liked the separation of the adaptations. Rather than having to scroll through an entire list, users can view adaptations by their medium (film, television, musicals, etc).

Organization evaluation
The organization both makes sense and helps the reader to follow the page. Sentences flow well together and there were not spelling or grammar errors evident.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. The article's main images is a photo of the first edition cover of the book. Throughout the article are photos of illustrations from the original illustrator, a photograph of the original main character from the Broadway production, and a still from the movie starring Shirley Temple.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The photos all have informative captions. Clicking on them shows the citation information.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * It seems so. They have copyright information on them. A couple have specific messages saying the image license has been approved by Flicker API.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the images help to showcase main ideas. In the plot summary, there are photos from the original publication that highlight important moments in the story. The play and adaptations sections also have images and media that showcase how the book was interpreted.

Images and media evaluation
In addition to images, the page has a media clip of the 1917 silent film. I enjoyed the media. I think it breaks up the text and highlights the novel and its adaptations. For example, showing the original Broadway Sara next to Shirley Temple as Sara shows how Sara's look has changed throughout adaptations.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are editor explaining their changes, asking for help with verification, and asking for copyediting assistance. One interesting conversation is centered on the A Little Princess game. One user labeled it as the whole page as LGBT because of the content of the video game, but another user removed this rating, explaining that a related game's content should not so heavily affect the entire A Little Princess page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated B-class. It is part of the Novels, Children's Literature, and Women Writers WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia does not touch on race or culture. Sara is white, but has been living in India. There is no real mention on how this has affected her. Similarly, the other servant girl, Becky, is black. Yet, her race and people's attitude toward her because of it were not directly addressed in the article page.

Talk page evaluation
This talk page is organized. There are explanations of edits, requests for other editors to check work, and editors point out where future help is needed.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall, this article is a sufficient page on A Little Princess. It is marked as important and the editors seem to keep track of the work.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It has a good plot and a thorough adaptations section.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * There were several areas mentioned above that were not addressed in the page.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think the page is well developed, but could do with some supplementation.

Overall evaluation
This was a good article to evaluate as the parts given are well written and comprehensive. It also allowed for me to take the time to think about what the article may be missing. The fact that it wasn't overwhelmingly inadequate meant I was able to see what a good article looks like. I also appreciated the detailed Talk Page notes.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: