User:ReginaPhelangie

About Me
Welcome to my Wikipedia page! The truth is, I am many things. I am an older sibling, a hard worker, and a leader. I value my roles within my family, social circles, and in the workplace. I'm also a singer, a writer, and cinema enthusiast. I love creating and experiencing various different art forms. I'm also athletic with a specific appreciation for basketball and baseball. Perhaps it's too poetic to say, but who I am contains multitudes, as is the case for all people in my opinion.

My Wikipedia Activities
The reason that I've created this page is, of course, due to an assignment for class. However, I do find myself using Wikipedia, and other resources (like books and articles) to learn things in everyday life. I imagine I could use Wikipedia more often to learn things like dog behavior, biographies of people, and other things that could be useful to know in my life. Speaking of dog behaviors, did you know that "each year, more than 4.5 million people in the US are bitten by dogs and almost 1 in 5 require medical attention"? Aside from that, I could also use Wikipedia as a source to relay information to the world on certain topics I can research/familiarize myself with. Whether that's through creating a Wikipedia article myself or through collaboration, and working with existing articles.

Why the Dumb Diary?
As a child, somehow "Dear Dumb Diary" found its way into my life. The covers were generally chaotic, with the protagonist, Jamie Kelly, unhappy with a situation happening in her life, and that always caught my attention. I remember my parents prohibiting me from reading the series because they believed Jamie’s narration to be a bit “vulgar, mean, and inappropriate” for a young girl to read, so I read what I could in secret. Today, I hope to rediscover the stories of Dear Dumb Diary, which is why I chose to analyze the Wikipedia article of this series. I will deep dive into the sources used within the article and their validity, any lack of important information, as well as seeing if the citations used within the article are current.

Source Reliability Evaluation
Yes, all the sources are from reputable companies dedicated to releasing information about entertainment, while others are dedicated to children's literature and literature in general. Sources such as Scholastic, Publishers Weekly, Variety magazine, the Book Report’s Network sub website called KidsReads.org, and others. However, there are a total of 6 sources in the article. More sources demonstrating different perspectives and more information in general about the Dear Dumb Diary series could be added to the article. Also, a few of the facts listed in the article could be revisited to be properly cited.

Evaluation of Information
Yes, plenty of information is missing. The introduction could use more description. The article also briefly discusses “reception” of the series. A sentence of criticism, that the comedy often “missed their mark”, but also that fans of Diary of a Wimpy Kid would probably like specifically the second book to the series, My Pants Are Haunted. The article then lists all the books, the first series, second series, and the deluxe edition book. The article references the film, but there is a separate Wikipedia article with more information about the film. The Wikipedia article of Diary of a Wimpy Kid for comparison has an extensive introduction paragraph, as well as a layout of all the characters, something the Dear Dumb Diary article lacks.

Recent Source Evaluation
Most, if not all the sources are from 2012. Considering the article is discussing the series that was first published in 2004, and there hasn’t been any recent conversation about the book series to my limited knowledge, I’d say the sources are as current as possible. I’d hope that additions to the article could incite some sort of positive attention towards the book series. Perhaps a personal revisit to the series could illuminate some of the negative feedback the book received. I look forward to the results.

Dumb Article?
Overall, I’d say this article is subpar. The article mainly lacks information about the book, and could use more elaboration about the story itself. However, the sources within the article were reputable, and are as up to date as possible.