User:Ruthy Flint/Evaluate an Article

User:Ruthy Flint/Evaluate an Article,

Which article are you evaluating?
(Playboy)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I am choosing this article because it is the article my partners and I will be working with on this project, and I want to evaluate it as an overall article. This article matters because it is the one I will be working with, so I want to make sure it is reliable and is a good topic to work with. My preliminary impression of the Playboy article is that it is quite extensive. There are a lot of different sections and subtopics, which shows there is a lot of research and information behind this source. I also noticed there is a lot of linked sources on the article as well. For the most part, the lead is concise, it has a paragraph talking about short story authors that have been published in the article, which is bit unnecessary right away in the lead, and I believe it goes on for a bit too long.

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.)

I am evaluating the Playboy wikipedia article. This article has a very informative lead. The first sentence does a great job at explaining what Playboy is, an American Mens magazine for entertainment and lifestyle. There is nothing mentioned in the lead that isn't mentioned in the article, however the lead does not fully set up what sections will be discussed.

For the most part this article does not have a persuasive aspect to it, it is very neutral. I think it does a good job at informing the readers about the facts. There is a censorship section which discusses the reactions some people had to the content, which I think is important to include in the article. However, there is no section on controversy or problematic history with Playboy, which I know existed. The article does not discuss Playboys treatment of women or how sexism was incorporated in the franchise.

This article is pretty set content wise. There are sections for different decades leading up until present day. The latest information was added about 2020 however, so I have no idea what Playboy is doing in 2023. But for the most part there is information about Playboy through the ages, and very extensive background information. There is a missing section on Gloria Steinem and her work with Playboy, which I think is necessary and important to understand. There is no section either on the controversy of playboy and some of the misconduct that went on. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's article gaps.

This article does have very good sources, there is an extensive amount of research, specifically current research. Sources range from scholarly articles to magazine articles. I believe there is a very good range of sources in this article. Additionally, there are sources from past decades such as the 60s and 70s, along with more modern sources, which provide a lot of background and range of information.

This article is well written, I do not see any grammatical or spelling errors. It is broken down into sections, the publication history dates sectioned off by decades. There is a lot of linked sources and information, which adds more context. I think it is very easy to understand, the writing is well explained and images provide more information.

There are images in this article that adhere to wikipedia guidelines and that help readers understand the article. I do think there could be more images included, such as more current examples of playboy articles or a Hugh Hefner image. The images are included in the section they relate to, but are not laid out in a visually appealing way.

This article is rated C class, low importance for Chicago and Law, but high importance for Magazines and Pornography. The talk page is mostly discussing minor edits, such as changing sentence structure. There are also discussions about additional sources, adding more up to date information and additional sources that might have been glanced over before. There are suggestions for adding more information for specific time periods, such as 2016 and 2018.

Overall this is a c-class level article. I do believe this is a very informative and helpful article however. It is very extensive, giving good background information on Playboy and separating the magazines history into helpful timelines. There is a lot of information on the publishing history, and how the company has developed over time. I do believe a section on controversy and personal accounts should be added, to give the full story of Playboy. Overall this is a well developed article, and it does a good job informing the readers on the different aspects of the topic.