User:Sguag1/Evaluate an Article

Little Red Riding Hood (1997 film)
I have chosen this article to evaluate because we have been working on the different versions of Little Red Riding Hood in my English class. Oh, and not to mention the fact that this article was a specific assignment.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The lead of this article gives a brief explanation of what the film consists of. It also gives credit and uses citations when necessary. Although it was brief, the baseline of the film's plot is there, however it doesn't give everything away about the details of the film. It doesn't mention anything about the rest of the article, but the "contents" section gives you a link to go to a specific section in the article.


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

Content

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the article's content is related to the topic. A brief summary of the plot is given for the reader to read before/after watching the film. The content is up to date and has relevant information when talking about the film. I think more information could've been given about the film, but if the authors of that article "agreed" on giving less information so as not to give away any spoilers, then I completely understand. I looked at the history and the last edit was made back in 2018 so it's not new new but it's fairly caught up.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * 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

 * Guiding questions

The article is very neutral. There isn't really anything to debate about in terms of the plot of the article. There weren't any opinions stated and made to outweigh yours. There was nothing like that in this article.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Since this article is about one specific film, there's only one source which is the film itself but the publishers did cite the link to the film in the lead. At the bottom of the page, there is a whole section filled with external links to different variations of Little Red Riding Hood which does go along with the film. I clicked on a few different links and those worked so I assume all of them haven't really changed since the article was last edited.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

This article is very easy to read as it is pretty concise and not too-detail orientated. I did notice one grammatical error though. " She is clever enough TO manage without being rescued..." The word "to" wasn't in the original sentence and now that I am reading that sentence over the whole thing doesn't really make that much sense to me. Even with the grammatical errors, this article was not hard to read and it pretty well organized.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The only image on that page is the film cover. This image is captioned and there are the credits given to the director, producer, etc. The image did adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. I wouldn't say it was formatted to appeal to the audience, I just think it was there to show the movie cover.


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

I couldn't find any conversations going on behind the scenes but I did see in the history section that there were a lot of additions to the credibility and the citing of sources. This specific article doesn't really talk about the sexual aspects that stood out to us in class the most. This article just gives us a brief explanation of the overall aspects of this film, it doesn't really go into depth about the intimacy and maturity difference from the fairytale.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

I would describe this article of having the "quality over quantity" aspect. It was informative but concise and short to the point. However, I do think that there could've been more information given on the film. For example, more detail or even a mention of the intimacy and the maturity of Little Red Riding Hood can improve this article a lot. I think it is well-developed but it would be more developed if there was just a little more information given.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: