User:Oliviajones14/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because it is one of the most commonly contested and censored children's books.

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
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.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * I think this article has a very strong lead that clearly defines who created this title and why.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it does not include this detail.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, everything mentioned is in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and clearly introduces the article.

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.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Everything detailed in the article is relevant to the article and adds important information.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, Pence is credited as the former vice president.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think there should be more details about the actual plot of the story. It is summed up in a few sentences while there are many paragraphs about the response to the book.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It gracefully commends the same-sex marriage representation in the book.

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.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, I would say it shares many perspectives.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Although I don't agree with them, I think it would be interesting to further include the arguments in the school system as to why it's been censored.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

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.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, there are always citations
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I would say most sources are from a perspective in support of the book.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * I think the author of this article did a good job including a variety of sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they all work

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


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I would say it is all well written except for the analysis section.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I could find.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

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.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is some conversation about the different ways the article could be organized into categories. Also, there were a few comments about the language used to refer to Pence's homophobic stances.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * B-class. It was part of the 50,000 project.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It is very civil, which is good. I was expecting more argument and controversy.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I think it is very well written and clear.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is very well organized and provides the facts in the least biased way it could.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The plot section seems very brief to me and lacking detail.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Very well developed--looks at many angles of the book