User:Smm456/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate the article for the children's book Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry by Mildred B. Taylor. I chose to evaluate it because it won the Newbery Medal in 1977 and has a C-class rating. My initial impression of the article was that it looked detailed and well done.

Evaluate the article
The first section of the lead section is very brief as it only says what the title of the book is and who the author is. It does not give a description of the sections that will follow in the article, rather it just talks about the books in the series, the fact that it won the Newbery Medal, and the themes of the book. It does include information that it not included in the article like the books in the series. The lead section could be more well-rounded as it is overly detailed in certain parts and too concise in others.

The articles's content is relevant as it has a section for the plot, characters, reception, and the book's film. The characters section is much longer than ant of the other sections. As I have not read the book I can't confirm if all of the information is accurate or not. The article does mention the recent book banning of Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry so it does have up to date information. Because the book is about the struggles of African Americans in the 1930s, it does discuss a historically underrepresented group.

The article is neutral as it cites several perspectives in its reception section and very simply outlines the plot and characters of the book without giving any opinions.

The article is backed up by reliable scholars and by interviews with the author. I am not sure if there are definitely more sources available on the book but I think the article should cite more than one scholar who wrote literature about the book. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and have peer-reviewed articles instead of random websites. Also, the links that I checked do work.

I didn't notice any serious issues with spelling or gramar but the lead and plot section could be rewritten to be more clear and concise. The writing seems to be a little all over the place. I do think that it is broken up into good sections that benefit the article.

There is one image of the book's first edition cover which I think is suffice for the article.

The commenters in the talk page seem to agree that the article looks bad and that it has a long way to go. Other editors have tried to fix the problems that others have mentioned over the years. The article is rated as C-class and is part of the Novels, Children's literature, and Women writers WikiProjects.

The article has a very detailed character section and a good reception and film section, but is lacking well-written lead and plot sections. I would say that the article is underdeveloped in certain areas and well-developed in others.