User:Sruvs/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
No Country for Old Men (novel)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Country_for_Old_Men_(novel)&oldid=1210548891

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article in particular as this novel was one of particular interest in school. This novel is widely acclaimed, with its movie companion having won four academy awards, and the book itself often being taught within the public education system. Thus, I find it important to make sure that all the information recorded is correct, and could potentially help readers in understanding its content. Furthermore, after reading it, I believe that there is definite room for improvement, thus encouraging me to assist in any way possible.

My initial impression of the article was good, but I definitely think that it could be improved upon as the content was rather vague. The plot synopsis was also missing some key-elements of the narrative.

Evaluate the article
LEAD SECTION

The lead contains a sentence that is very clear about the subsequent article, stating the most basic facts (ie: publication date and origin) about the novel which will be mentioned. The lead contains information about the subsequent sections, however, it seems to be emphasizing some of the less important, rather than the most which would ideally be included within the lead section. All of the information within the lead is pertinent and included except one detail (that is repeated more than once later, but never explained) about the first drafts of the novel having been a screenplay. I think this needs to be included in the article later. The lead is concise, while some details may have room for adjustment, the pacing itself is fine.

CONTENT

All of the content contained within the article is relevant and updated to be synonymous with the subject. However, on that note, I'd argue that the article is missing some key information about things that are present within it - but never explained. For example, the mention of its first draft being a screenplay and/or the references to McCarthy's writing style without explaining the function of such a style. *His style being that he does not employ punctuation besides periods.

This article does not directly bridge one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, but it has the opportunity to. Cormac McCarthy is a white-cisgender author, however, his novels (No Country for Old Men) in particular addresses race issues within border towns, and the poverty gaps within.

TONE AND BALANCE

This article is successful in being neutral, not leaning heavily toward any one interpretation and/or feeling about the novel. Further, the author has done a successful job in including literary criticism and praise in response to the reception of the novel. I'd say that there could generally be more reception of the novel added to the reception section, but particularly, that of Hispanic writers. McCarthy commonly addresses the Hispanic community (specifically the Texas-Mexican border areas) in a manner that could be received a multitude of ways. Generally, speaking there are no minority viewpoints within the article which leaves much room for revision.

With that said, the article is neutral and does not wish to persuade readers one way or the other.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Looking through the sources provided within the reference page (which is only a whooping 7, a call for concern), I'd argue that a variety of the sources provided are not factual. They come from benign websites that bombard readers with pop-up ads, and news sources that may/or may not be opinion pieces. Despite all of the links working, some of these aforementioned sources also have pay walls. Arguably, none of the sources are scholarly or peer-reviewed.

Additionally, the sources are not currently. The newest having been published in 2010 (nearly 14 years ago now), with some of the older ones appearing in 2007, shortly after the novel's release. Furthermore, there are not a great deal (or really any) diverse viewpoints included within the article. All reviewers of the novel referenced were white, middle-aged men well into their writing career.

There are certainly better sources available. In my digging, I managed to find a slew of sources published within the last two years, two having been in different languages all-together (one being Spanish). Further, I was able to also source women who written on the topic, meaning that the opportunity to better the sources is present.

ORGANIZATION AND WRITING QUALITY

The article itself is well written and free of spelling and grammatical errors. I believe that its writing is easy to understand, thus making it accessible to most readers. Further, the sections are organized in a manner that is well-down and clear, although the article could do with more sections all together.

IMAGES AND MEDIA

There are very little images all-together, with only one. being present. It is well captioned, and contributes in a visually appealing way to the piece, but its citation could be proved as it was obtained from Amazon. However, the image is free-use, thus adhering to copyright laws.

TALK-PAGE DISCUSSIONS

There are no talk-page discussions on the novel talking portal at the moment. There is only a singular comment on that of the film.

The article is B-Rated, with membership in two WikiProjects: United States: Texas and Novels. Both having relatively mid-to-low importance.

This article differs from the way we have addressed articles in class in that it is devoid of meaningful conversation within the talking page. It doesn't offer much for me to build off of, therefore I'd have to take the plunge myself and hope that others would follow.

OVERALL

The article is ok overall, and I'd say it does a good job at offering the baseline information required to understand the article. Further, it offers a compelling synopsis which most readers would have very little difficulty comprehending.

I think adding more diverse viewpoints, along with adding more general content could greatly improve this article as it does feel a bit barren. Further, I think encouraging people to focus at least some attentions on this article would greatly help. Overall, the article is successful in some ways, but continues to feel underdeveloped at its current stage in development.