User:Mterr2/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.


 * Little Red Riding Hood (1997 film)
 * It is an article about a short film we had to watch in class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Little Red Riding Hood is a 1997 black and white short film based on the traditional children's fairytale Little Red Riding Hood. Written and directed by David Kaplan, it features Christina Ricci in the title role. The film bears similarities to some of the earliest versions of the fairytale, including the Italian "La finta nonna" (The False Grandmother).


 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead describes the topic in a simple and accurate way. It states the facts of what the article is about and even offers a bit more detail that one might not be aware of before reading it. It doesn't describe the major sections of the article nor much of anything. It's brief and concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions

Contents

 * 1 Plot
 * 2 Cast
 * 3 Reception
 * 3.1 Awards
 * 4 See also
 * 5 Notes
 * 6 External links


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The content is short but relevant to the topic. There's not much there because there's not many different sections that could be garnered from this short film but everything mentioned is relevant to the topic at hand. The content is up to date and there doesn't appear to be anything missing nor anything that doesn't belong. The article doesn't deal with any equity gaps nor does it talk about underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

This version of the classic children's story employs elements of black comedy. The black-and-white scenario shows the forest of the tale, and narrator Quentin Crisp is the only voice heard in the film.

An androgynous anthropomorphized black wolf, portrayed by ballet dancer Timour Bourtasenkov, tries to trick Little Red Riding Hood. He successfully eats her grandmother, and then tries to eat her. However, she tricks him and survives. She is clever enough manage without being rescued by the huntsman, often included in versions of the tale, and does not "rescue" the eaten grandmother at all; she in fact eats her grandmother's flesh as well, even after being warned by a cat. She is thus portrayed, in another contrast to traditional depictions of the story, as being less than innocent.

Cast

 * Christina Ricci: Little Red Riding Hood
 * Timour Bourtasenkov: The Wolf
 * Evelyn Solann: The Grandmother
 * Quentin Crisp: Narrator

Awards[edit]

 * Avignon Film Festival, 1998: Prix Panavision award, David Kaplan
 * Avignon/New York Film Festival, 1998: Vision Award, Scott Ramsey
 * Williamsburg Brooklyn Film Festival 1999: Certificate of Excellence — Best Cinematography, Scott Ramsey


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral. It describes the topic without leaning towards a certain claim or opinion. It's short and to the point. The articles tells readers what is going on in the movie and nothing more. There's no clear views detailed in the article so nothing is overrepresented or underrepresented.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Sources and references evaluation
There aren't many sources but they do seem to come from reliable sources. I don't know exactly if there are any other sources that would cover such a obscure topic so I do think they cover the available literature of the topic. They aren't necessarily current because the movie was made so long ago and the articles were put out about the same time. The authors are not readily available so we can't really know if there is a diverse spectrum of authors, although there are three links that come from the same source. If we go by that then they aren't really diverse. The links work and take readers to the right source.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is well written. It's not hard to read and there aren't any spelling or grammatical errors that I caught. The article is broken down well. There isn't any confusion and the major points of the topic make sense.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There is no media in the article aside from an image of the movie poster on the information box on the right. The imaged in captioned well and they adhere to the copyright regulations.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
There isn't much conversation on the Talk page. There are a few questions that never got answered and one statement that never had any follow up. The article is rated as Start-Class and it is apart of the WikiProjects Film. There isn't much discussion about the article so our discussions are more in depth and have more variety than what is presented in the talk page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
It is a fairly good article. It doesn't provide much information but that could be because the topic isn't something that you can provide a lot of detail on. It's good for answering the simple questions one might have about the film but anything more than that it's not really great. There isn't much detail to the article so I would say that it's a bit underdeveloped and could use a bit more work.

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: