User:Pisces Unicorn/Evaluate an Article the Bad Beginning

Evaluation of The Bad Beginning by Pisces Unicorn
The Bad Beginning - I am evaluating this article because it was listed as a C-Class article oh high-importance and the topic is familiar to me, so I suspect I ought to be able to notice inaccuracies or bias in tone. -- Pisces Unicorn (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead Evaluation

 * The lead is a short synopsis of the plot of the book that does a good job of remaining neutral in its evaluation of the quality of the book.
 * The lead does not explain the articles major sections and is lacking citations for multiple statements that appear to be facts.

Content Evaluation

 * The content of the article is on-topic, although the critical reception section is a bit biased.
 * The synopsis may be overly detailed, with distracting elaborations using descriptive language that doesn't match the rest of the article's straight-forward tone.
 * The content is lacking citations.

Tone and Balance Evaluation

 * The critical reception section is too biased in tone. It quotes critics from a review on and the citation brings people to a buy the book webpage.
 * Instead of quoting reviews, the critical reception section could be improved by using sales statistics, answering questions like, "how many copies are in circulation?" "How much money has the book made in sales?" "How many libraries have copies of the book?" "Has the book had any adaptations?"
 * The Critical reception section seems to be trying to persuade readers that the book had positive reviews. It is not well balanced.

Pisces Unicorn (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)



Sources & References Evaluation

 * The link to the source for citation #1 does not work.
 * The source for the second citation is a review on a website which has two "buy now" buttons above the review and seems biased to sell more copies.
 * The link to the source for citation #7 is broken.
 * The link to the source for citation #4 does not go to a page with information and instead links to the publishers' website

Organization

 * The structure of the contents and the sections is good.
 * The article is mostly easy to read, except for superfluous artistic liberties when describing the plot in the Synopsis section. i.e. "covered in disconcerting eye images" and the synopsis is so detailed it might spoil the ending of the book for first-time readers.

Images

 * The image of the cover of the book is appropriate and accurate.
 * It may be helpful to have images or illustrations from adaptations in the adaptations section, however, there is a link to the television series which ought to suffice.

Overall Impression

 * This article is in acceptable condition but could use improvement and the C-Class rating seems appropriate. Better sources and references will greatly improve the article.

End of Evaluation
--Pisces Unicorn (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)