User:Rebeccalj30/Evaluate an Article

Special:Prefixindex/User:rebeccalj30

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: 1917 (2019 film) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_(2019_film)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I recently saw this film and enjoyed it and thought that it would be fun to look at.

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:
The Lead does include an introductory sentence that sets up the article. It does at least briefly touch on most of the points that are covered in the article's major sections and does not seem to include information that is not present in the article. The Lead does seem a little overly detailed especially as it includes a good portion of the accolades the film has received in the Lead when the specifics of those could have been mentioned later.

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?

Content evaluation:
The article's content is relevant to the topic as it focuses on the film and its' important aspects. The content is very up-to-date especially considering that this movie is fairly new so most of the information would have had to have been added recently to keep it up-to-date like it is. There does not seem to be a ton that does not belong or is missing except for under the "Music" category it just links readers to the soundtrack's Wikipedia instead of giving any summary of the music in this article.

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 does seem fairly neutral including positive and negative reviews of the film. There are no claims that seem heavily biased toward a particular position and nothing is over or underrepresented in the article and there's really no attempt to persuade the reader one way or another as it seems to stick to the facts of what the film is, how it was made and how it was received.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation:
Many sources are cited in the article, but most of them are reviews and interviews which, as this film is fairly new, is pretty much the extent of the available literature on the topic. The sources are, however, current and the links do work.

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:
I would say that overall the article is very well written, seems to be free of grammatical and spelling errors and is well organized.

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 only includes two images, the official UK theatrical release poster and an old photo of actual British soldiers during World War I, which do add tot he understanding of the topic in their respective places though I feel like there could have been more added fro more of an impact. The images included are well-captioned, adhere to the Wikipedia copyright regulations and are laid out in a visually appealing way.

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 are some interesting conversations on whether to include the film's critical acclaim and whether it should be called a British or English film. The article is rated C-class in WikiProject Film and is rated B-class, Low importance in WikiProject United States / American Cinema and those are also the WikiProjects it is a part of. There are not quite as many arguments here and most people on the talk page seem to be pretty respectful contrary to some of what we have seen 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:
Overall, the article is very well done and a great article. The article's strengths come from its' ability to have the detail people might be looking for when they look up this film, but not being too much. I think it could be improved by taking out the section about which top 10 lists it made (this seems irrelevant to me) and adding a small summary about the music in this article. I think this article is well-developed and nicely done.

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: