User:Oreok03/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Anastasia (1997 film)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I saw that it was rated a C category article and I wanted to know why exactly it was rated so low. I know a lot about the movie itself as it is one of my favorites so I was hoping to help improve this article and give it the recognition it deserves.

Evaluate the article
LEADING

The article does start off with a good introduction. The authors start off their intro with the topic they are talking about (in this case Anastasia). While continuing to read it is seen that the lead does not have a brief description of the major sections and the introduction just talks about who was in the movie and the accomplishments said movie has achieved. It is also shown that the lead does include information that is already presented in the article. The lead included the voice actors names (who they played) and more background on the film (producers etc.), however as soon as you start to scroll there is a section below that is titled “voice cast” and repeats everything we saw in the lead paragraph. Overall, the lead is overly detailed. The lead should just be a short intro that discusses the main point of the article and introduces the sections that we (the readers) are about to look over. A lot of this information can be distributed across different sections in order for the lead to be concise and not overly detailed.

CONTENT

All of the article's content is relevant to the topic. All the information given (even if it’s a lot) matches up with the section it is under. Nothing is out of order, but I did notice that some information is repeated throughout the article. While reading I also noticed that the content is up to date. For example, this movie use to be on Disney+ but they removed the film recently and this recent topic was discussed and removed from the article. All information given is relevant to the article and there does not seem to be missing content or any facts that don't belong. The movie is an adaptation of the story of the Romanovs (who were Russian royalty in the 1900s) the story of the Romanovs wasn’t well known to the younger generations until this movie came out so in a sense this article does talk about underrepresented topics.

TONE AND BALANCE

After reading this article it can be seen that the article is neutral. There are no opinionated statements throughout the article. The author just gives us all the information in an organized manner and then goes onto the next topic. No heavily biases were claimed in this article (unless in the talk section) and even then those edits didn't make it to the final article. The article also does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? There are no sides to this article it's just talking about the movie and the history about said movie.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Facts are backed up by reliable sources of information. Most of the facts given are just movie ratings and scores, but the information given about the cast members go off topic with their sources (ex. Some talk about their singing voice in Disney which has nothing to do with the article as it was produced by FOX before Disney owned them). Some sources are thorough while others are vague and only include a sentence that relates to the article it's put on. The sources used in this article are current and also relate to the time period this movie was made. There are sources from 2015 but also a lot from 1997 (when the movie first came out). Most of the sources are by critics writing about their thoughts on the movie, but then there are some sources that go off topic from the movie “Anastasia” to talk about one of the cast's other careers. So, because this article is about an animated film, most sources are from random websites or critics, but if we look through the true story side of things, then yes there are better sources out there that help explain the history of Anastasia compared to a blog stating a summary. Overall, there are reliable sources in this article and the links do still work.

ORGANIZATION & WRITING QUALITY

The organization of this article is good, but as stated before there are some parts that are repeated, which makes the writing quality decrease. While continuing to read the article, there are no huge visible grammatical or spelling errors in this article, just little fixes like removing or adding a comma. Usually run-on sentences are an issue, but this article seems to have kept it under control and every sentence doesn’t seem too long or too short. The article is broken down into organized sections, however, some parts can be moved to other sections in order for the article to flow more smoothly (ex. Shortening the lead section). Also some text for the section titles are bigger than others so just by having that small little error it makes the article look less professional.

IMAGES AND MEDIA

Throughout the article, there's only one image included and it’s the movie cover of the movie. It helps the readers see what movie they are talking about as some movies have so many adaptations that it can get very confusing at times (ex. Cinderella). Said image is captioned “Theatrical release poster” which though its vague, it gets the message across and is straight to the point. We don’t need to add more words than needed. The photo also adheres to the copyright regulations which is good. The image is laid out in an appealing way because it is right at the top of the article, so off the bat the readers can have a visual of what will be talked about before they even started to read the article. It also doesn’t cover any paragraphs in an awkward way so the introduction can flow smoothly.

TALK PAGE DISCUSSION

On the talk page the conversations that are going on are just fixing small errors or asking if adding this information was needed or if it was just added fluff. The discussion flowed well and no one got too upset over anything. Just a simple question and answer type format. This could also be because it is apart of Wiki Projects so this article started off with a group of editors and not just one person. This discussion is different from how it is done in class because the people talking on this page do more research on the specific topic (fact checking) compared to in class where we do the general search (grammar, flow, tone).

OVERALL THOUGHTS

My overall thoughts is that I understand why it is rated as a C category now. This article has both strengths and weaknesses. The strengths is that they included a lot of relevant information about the topic that I wouldn’t even think of adding. All the links for the actors was also a nice touch to the article because if someone wanted to read about them, then that article is easily accessible to the reader. They also did a good job with spell checking and grammatical errors. Everything flowed smoothly for the most part and I didn’t have to reread anything to comprehend what was being said. Now with that being said, the article can be improved by just fixing those format issues (some text being bigger than others) and fixing the organization of the lead. The lead should be shortened and straight to the point and all the other information that’s in that paragraph should be distributed throughout the article if the authors believe it to be important information. Finally, the authors just need to make sure to not repeat the same information over and over. Talking about the completeness of this article, I believe in a sense it’s overdeveloped. There is so much good information given, it’s just not organized in the best way. Overall, if the given information was put in the proper section, then I believe this would move up from a category C article.