User:Nicolelamp/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)
 * Looking for Alaska
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose to evaluate this article because

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Slightly overdetailed but it the Lead is still overall effective

Lead evaluation
This is an very effect Lead that includes a clear introductory sentence, brief description of the article's major sections and does not include any information that is not present in the article. The Lead is slightly overdetailed but still fairly concise and effective.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, it includes information from October of 2019
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No the article is very well written and covers a wide range of information about the book from author's background to controversy over the book.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Content evaluation
This article has good content that is relevant, through and up to date. The article doesn't appear to have and missing content. The article also does not address any of Wikipedia's equity gaps or historical underrepresented issues.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No appears very unbiased
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Evenly represented for the most part. It looks like the controversy and critique sections outweigh the awards sections.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No it is pretty free from opinion

Tone and balance evaluation
This article has a good tone and balance. It shows no clear biased or attempt to persuade the reader. The book controversy section is much longer and more detailed than the awards section which makes the book appear to be more criticized than appreciated. This issue could be solved by adding more detail to the awards section.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes all 2005 or later, most in the late 2010s
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Somewhat diverse spectrum, but do not include marginalized individuals
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
This article has a very robust list of sources and references. There are 50 sources and they are all from the 2005 or later but majority are from the mid to late 2010's which means it is fairly recent and up to date sources. There are even a large number of sources from 2019. The sources and references section could improve by including sourcing from marginalized groups instead of just main stream media.

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
This article is pretty well written, it is very clear and easy to read but not very concise and sometime repetitive across the different sections. The article does have little grammatical errors like incorrect spelling or misplaced commas. But no obvious major grammatical errors. The article is very well organized and does a good job of clearing breaking down the major parts of the subject and explaining them.

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
The only images are one of the book cover and one of John Green, the author. These images are nice and provide some further explanation of the book but they are not very interesting or adding anything special to the Wikipedia page. These images are properly cited and well-captioned. I think the article could be greatly immproved by adding more pictures such as one of the cover for the short Hulu series for the book that is mentioned in the Adaptation section of the page.

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
Very polite conversations on the talk page, most edits that have been made were small spelling and grammatical changes. There were some recommendations for the article to include that the book is meant for ages 14 and up and to include the book winning the ALA award and an image of the author's excitement from the book winning it. The use for this talk page is pretty similar to what we discussed in class.

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
This grading on this article is currently a B. This article has a lot of good attributes such as clear topic sections, a lot of detailed information, especially about the controversy and themes in the book. I think the article is lacking concision, balance between sections, overall little grammatical errors, and more pictures. The article is complete and well-developed in terms of content but needs more polish and finesse on the presentation of that content.

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: