User:Satritt/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
A Wrinkle in Time

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article out of a list of children's fantasy/science fiction books that we created for class. I chose this article specifically because it was one of the more detailed articles. Though I did not read the book, I am familiar with the storyline.

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

The second sentence of the lead includes awards the book either received or was nominated for. The prior sentence only categorizes the novel as a young adult novel and mentions the author. I would not have placed the award section this early on in the lead. A general idea of the plot details would be more useful. The awards should come later in the lead. The remaining sentence of the lead section do not flow together well. All of the topics mentioned are relevant to the article, however, some sentences are repetitive or not clear. Some of the themes mentioned in the analysis section are not present in the lead.

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 provides a range of context for the novel. Includes plot information as well as analysis, reception, and the authors past.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * the information appears to be up to date. There is a mention of the 2018 movie which suggests the article has been update recently.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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.


 * The article appears to maintain a neutral position. All sections of analysis are clearly presented as the opinion of the relevant scholar. There is a lot of emphasis on the religious undertones of the book. The sections describing other relevant themes are not as detailed. This may be due to a smaller amount of academic sources. However, this imbalance prioritizes the religious interpretations of this book. The section on feminism seems particularly sparse. Though the section suggests that the book was very empowering for female readers there is only a brief description of how it did so. Further evidence would support this claim.

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?
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * There are quite a few older sources in this article. This makes sense as the book was published in the 1960s. However, it would be useful to add some modern analyses of the novel and its impact. This may be particularly useful for the section on religious themes and conformity.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * there are many different authors represented across a range of years
 * 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.)
 * there are more modern sources on the religious themes in a wrinkle in time that may be useful for updating the analysis. A lot of the sources also seem to be news articles so it would be useful to replace these with academic articles
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

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?
 * not that I noticed
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * for the most part. The character section includes very little information which makes the formatting strange. Conformity is the only theme in the analysis section with a subheading which does not seem necessary

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * a few alternate covers and a screen shot from the movie. I would add one from the 2018 movie as well.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * the caption of the movie does not clearly mention that it is from the movie. There is also no year. One of the book covers does not include a year.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * the mention of the book appearing on a banned book list is interesting and not in the article
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * high importance in some projects and low importance in others
 * part of multiple wikiprojects
 * 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?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * the lead of the article is the main weakness. The analyses could also be updated to reflect current opinions on the book. May be useful to situate the book in a modern context and not just its initial publication
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * well-developed could be updated and expanded