User:RampagingKoala/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: Otaku
 * The topic of otaku is somewhat controversial, and it relates directly to the disingenuous article on "2D love" we read earlier, so I thought it would be good to evaluate this article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
I think the lead is pretty good. It has a nice brief, inclusive definition of otaku along with a little historical context.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
Content is relevant and mostly up-to-date; it might be good to update some of the sections which reference studies from the early 2000's. One could argue that otaku do not get much historical representation, but I would contend that they are not underrepresented and thus this article does not deal with a significant equity gap.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 in tone and statement of fact, though it does seem to be primarily written (in its current incarnation) from an otaku-friendly standpoint. Negative aspects of otaku or otaku culture are either mentioned in passing or excused as stigma. For example, the article mentions the 1989 "Otaku Murderer" on multiple occasions and attributes negative perception of otaku solely to this single high-profile event. A more detailed analysis of the referenced suspicion from the authorities would be in order, whether it was well-founded or not.

The article does not take a persuasive standpoint, but ultimately conveys a certain viewpoint through inclusion and omission of information.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The facts in the article are sufficiently cited, and the oldest sources aren't much more than a decade old. Some sources are from academic literature but a fair number are from websites and even blogs, including the article on 2D love we examined earlier. Sources are primarily English and Japanese language, including American, European, and Japanese perspectives. Japanese sources are somewhat underrepresented considering the topic at hand, in my opinion, and the article very much comes from a perspective of outside looking in. Furthermore, only one system of classification for otaku from a single institution was included. The links I checked worked.

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 clearly written, clearly delineated, and free (to my eye) of grammar and spelling errors, if a little short.

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 article includes only two images, both of which are adequate demonstratives of written information but do not add anything of their own to the article. Captions are concise and factual. Assuming good faith on the part of the uploaders (one image is cited as own work), images adhere to copyright rules. The image layout is not positively or negatively outstanding; I would describe it as unoffensive.

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 is a fairly active conversation around being careful not to overtly portray otaku as obsessive or perverted. There was also some discussion of a problematic section which linked otaku to Asperger's Syndrome, which was removed. There's also some minor discussion over the inclusion of specific examples of otaku subsets.

The article is part of the Video Games, Sociology, Anime and Manga, and Japan/Culture WikiProjects,

The main difference I see is that the article addresses the issue from the outside (this is clear from the talk page) without the self-awareness required when examining something toward which you may have inherent perceptions or biases.

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
Overall, the article does a decent job of introducing someone who doesn't know what an otaku is to the subject. However, it would stand to benefit from more robust sources, and acknowledgement of some misconceptions (citing the 2D love article we found to be disingenuous seems like an issue). Furthermore, issues such as police treatment of perceived otaku receive only passing mention. These topics should either be covered in more detail, or if no reliable sources are available, not referenced. I think the article is a bit underdeveloped.

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:Talk:Otaku