User:Rrichter456/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The Giver

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because of how this particular book fits perfectly into the subject of banned literature. The book itself has been a frequently challenged book and within the book the topic of censorship is the primary focus. I believe that with a book that has typically been regulated a Wikipedia page allowing the open access to it is very important.

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. The introductory sentence is a basic identification of the book The Giver, which is the topic of the article.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No. Two major sections -- "Background" and "Literary significance and criticism" -- are not clearly presented in the article's lead even though they are major sections of the article.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * The lead talks about the quartet that is created with this novel and three others then fails to mention again later in the article one of the four books in the quartet (The Son).
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article's content is all relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * As far as I can concern right now, the content is up-to-date, but I would have to dive further into The Giver 's content and context to confirm this.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't necessarily think content is missing but I don't think certain content is evaluated enough.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. The article has both positive and negative reactions to the book presented and none of which are because the author of the novel is a white woman.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The tone of the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are more quotes about the negative reactions to the novel rather than the positive reactions to the article which may overrepresent a negative viewpoint of the novel.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No viewpoints are clearly labeled as minority or fringe viewpoints.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No. The article is flagged as an article in need of further verification through more citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No. The article is flagged as an article in need of further verification through more citations.
 * Are the sources current?
 * As far as I can tell, the most recent source is from 2016 which is not that recent.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources do have a diverse spectrum of authors but don't necessarily include historically marginalized individuals (then again, The Giver does not particularly present any marginalized groups.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * I think there are a lot of better sources that can be found by a simple Google Scholar search that would dive deeper into what the book is about.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Several links do not work or lead into sites that do not feature the information they are said to be the source of.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is clear, concise, and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no grammatical or spelling errors as far as I can tell.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The organization of the article is very clear.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is a singular picture of the novel's cover, but I do not know where one would be able to add more pictures on this topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes. The image is cited.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes. The image is to the right of the lead of the article and helps set it up.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is a concern for vandalism and missing chunks of the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article was a featured article but that status has been removed. The article is in several WikiProjects: WikiProject Books, WikiProject Novels, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Women writers, and WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * No. Wikipedia discusses this topic with concerns for the vandalism of the article and missing content gaps.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is a former featured article. At one point in time it was a good Wikipedia article and now it is a bit dilapidated.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths are its organization and straightforwardness.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by filling in some content gaps, fixing up the lead, and adding more citations.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is underdeveloped and definitely needs more work.