User:SebastianG1002/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

I have chosen to evaluate "Beloved" because it is an article describing a novel that places heavy themes such as psychological suffering and the impact of slavery front and center and because the article covers the controversy and banning of the novel.
 * Name of article: Beloved
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Somewhat
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The Lead to the "Beloved" article is quite short, but it serves its purpose as an introduction to the subject and to the article well. Many of the major sections of the article are referenced either directly or have a piece of them rephrased within the Lead, with the exception of the Major Themes, Adaptations, and Banning and Controversy sections. The only information not present anywhere else in the article were two lines about the inspiration for the novel, which could easily be placed in the Background section and should also be properly sourced. Overall, more can be added to the header to better introduce the article without sacrificing its brevity.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Content evaluation
The content of the Beloved article is extensive and encompasses many of the expected points of discussion about the book. None of the content is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and the content is evidently up to date as new developments concerning the book's banning and recent analyses of the book from as late as 2019 are referenced in the article. One area of concern is the sparseness of cited references in parts of the article pertaining to the major themes of the book and the critical reception, parts that should be well-sourced and free of original research. More information can be provided about the background to the novel´s writing and Morrison's own statements about the novel and her responses to the reactions of others. The article does a good job of presenting many different viewpoints on the novel from critics in a neutral manner. The article helps to deal with the racial gap on Wikipedia because it addresses an important work of African-American literature in a detailed and respectful manner.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The article's tone is very much a neutral one that represents many different viewpoints on the novel equally. In the Legacy section of the article, positive and negative reactions and critiques of the novel are given equal space, without any apparent preference for one side of the critical reception or the other. The section also presents many different scholarly debates over the true meaning and themes of the book that provides an even wider picture of the various perceptions and discussions surrounding the work. When discussing the controversies surrounding the book being banned in American schools, the article presents the information in an objective manner, although it does not include any information about the opposition to the bans and the counterarguments in favor of keeping the book on school shelves.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? Somewhat
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Somewhat
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Mostly

Sources and references evaluation
As previously mentioned, there are a few sections or parts of sections within the article that lack thorough sourcing. While the sources that are present are a good mix of secondary news pieces and scholarship, the majority of the scholarly journals cited were written in 1997 or earlier, so there could potentially be a great deal of contemporary analyses of the novel missing from the article. Two of the source links no longer function, and it seems that the sources do include a more diverse spectrum of authors with rich perspectives on the novel and its greater social and cultural themes. I believe the article is in need of more sources and references if it is to significantly improve in quality.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
The article is well-organized and well-written, lacking any significant grammatical or spelling errors. The sections of the article follow a linear order that makes sense, moving from the book's Background to sections describing the book itself to sections covering topics about the novel post-release (Adaptations, Legacy, Awards). The Major Characters section could be placed before Major Themes in order to give readers a better understanding of the characters before the characters are more thoroughly analyzed to find the messages of the novel.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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

Images and media evaluation
The article contains two images, one of the novel's first edition cover and one of an artist's depiction of the Emancipation Proclamation. Both images are descriptively captioned and follow Wikipedia's copyright guidelines. The Emancipation Proclamation image is loosely tied to some of the points made in the Major Themes section but I believe it is connected enough to be used in the article. If there are any other images related to Reconstruction Era society or Toni Morrison that fall within the public domain, then they should be used to add more visual variety to the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There has been a lot of discussion behind the scenes of the Beloved article on how to improve the article and better represent the subject matter. From the discussions on the page, it seems that the plot summary was grossly inaccurate because it was filled with conjecture and assumptions about plot details that were intentionally left up to interpretation by Morrison or were just simply not true. The Major Themes section was not as fleshed out as it once was, and someone mentioned that the space filled by the Major Characters section would better be utilized covering other topics. The analysis sections of the article were also mentioned as an area in need of more attention, and there were clearly multiple efforts to include new information to flesh out the article as a whole.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is a B-class article, of Top Importance to Wikiproject Novels and Wikiproject Women Writers.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedians have been heavily focused on ensuring the discussion of the content of the novel itself is accurate while making sure the page does not come across as a book study guide like SparkNotes. There has not been much discussion about the Banning and Controversy section or ways to improve it, which significantly differs from our class discussions where we put the fact that books like Beloved are banned and challenged at the forefront.

Talk page evaluation
See the individual responses above.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Although rated as a B-class article, I believe the Beloved article requires a lot more expansion and proper citation to be deserving of that rating. Certain sections are very lacking in detail and references, and the Lead can be improved in several ways as well.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article's strengths are the neutral tone and diverse array of opinions and analyses of the book that it carries, as well as the description of the novel's contents, provided that they are accurate (I cannot speak to the current accuracy of the article as I have not read Beloved myself).
 * How can the article be improved? The article can be improved by reworking the Lead, expanding the Background, Adaptations, and Banning and Controversies section, adding more information and citations from recent scholarly work about the novel and its themes, and rearranging a few of its sections for better clarity.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say that the Beloved article is slightly underdeveloped, but with some work it will be a solid article worthy of a B-class rating and potentially even an A-class rating.

Overall evaluation
See the individual responses above.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Beloved (novel)