User:Saconway22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I saw first-hand how it caused controversy in a preschool earlier this year. This article is both controversial because of its association with politics and its addressing of same-sex marriage/LGBTQ+ community.

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.

The lead section includes the naming author, an overview of the book (and how it relates to the LGBTQ+ community), and its relation to another children's book Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The way in which the lead is divided could be improved. In the second paragraph, both the controversial nature of the article and the publication of the book are addressed:

"The book and its LGBTQ-inclusive theme was written by Jill Twiss (with Marlon Bundo credited as co-writer), who is a comedy writer for the television show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, aiming to deride Vice President Pence over his controversial anti-LGBTQ views, such as his alleged support for conversion therapy of gay adolescents and opposition to same-sex marriage. It was released on March 18, 2018, one day before the release of Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President. The audiobook version features Jim Parsons, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Jeff Garlin, Ellie Kemper, John Lithgow, Jack McBrayer, and RuPaul. Alli Brydon, a freelance children's book editor, worked as a consultant and editor. The book was designed by Andrea Miller."

This could be improved by moving the first two sentences to the final paragraph of the article. Overall, I believe the lead is concise; however, since "reception" has its own dedicated section, it may be beneficial to provide a brief overview of the different responses. That way, when readers read:

"aiming to deride Vice President Pence over his controversial anti-LGBTQ views, such as his alleged support for conversion therapy of gay adolescents and opposition to same-sex marriage,"

they won't create their own assumptions about the public response.

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.

I believe that the content is up-to-date; however, this article has not been worked on since 2018. There may be additional information that has since come out in the past 3 years.

There is a heavy emphasis on the controversy surrounding this book; however, it does not have to do with same-sex marriage or the LGBTQ+ community, but rather John Oliver and his team mocking Vice President Mike Pence. This may be a gap in the writing of this article, specifically in the analysis section.

"Children who do feel out of place may have a hard time handling that. Twiss was hoping for a bit of satisfaction or contentment for those kids when reading about two same-sex bunnies marrying each other. The book takes a position against laws and actions against LGBTQ rights. These themes consist of respect, approval, and equality. This children's book is a way to show young people that "love is forever and be proud of who you are". The book is a presentation to delve into LGBTQ relationships and that 'true love will always win out'."

In this quote, there are no wiki links to LGBTQ relationships or rights, which, if provided, could lead to a greater understanding of why this book is controversial because of its dealing with this subject, rather than just being controversial for its association with Vice President Pence.

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 from a neutral point of view? Overall yes, it is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no claims that are heavily biased; however, there is little mention of the content and how it represents the LGBTQ+ community.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? I would say that the viewpoints of the Pence administration are accurately described. Both sides of the controversy are described.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

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? This is questionable as I don't think "info web" is a reliable source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? There is still ongoing controversy around this book.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I believe so.
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Some sources do not work, such as: https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/user/login?destination=document-view?p=AWNB&docref=news/16C676BEEE6D6FE0 and https://www.dailywire.com/news/28416/nasty-john-oliver-targets-pence-daughters-ben-shapiro

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


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I saw.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It could be improved by including more history about why the content of the book is controversial.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

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? In the talk pages wording and how to subdivide the article is primarily discussed.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated B-Class and is included in WikiProject Books, Children's Literature, Comedy, LGBT Studies, and United States.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? The overall status is Rated B-Class
 * What are the article's strengths? The article does touch upon many different viewpoints
 * How can the article be improved? I think it can be updated to include the current/continued controversy.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I do think it is well-developed, but could be improved.