User:Steffon Grice/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Silent comedy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
A student assignment led me to a link to find an article through academic disciplines. I'm in a film history class that covers silent film, and this article is stated to need more citations for verification. I thought it'd be one good enough to evaluate for the first time.

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.)

It's a short article for a genre and medium that I think carries a lot of the backing for the beginning of filming, where such loose theatrical elements played a part in bringing consumers of it to theaters and other viewing locations, especially from an American perspective. With the limited information, there were some setbacks that make the article feel unconvincing and incomplete.


 * Sources - Two of them were from these snippets of Indian news reports, which when read through, do not carry the quality needed to simply be added. News articles brush over most noteworthy details for a quick easy read, and can be biased at times. It looks like proof to say that it is there in the modern era still, yet it doesn't elaborate on what significance beyond saying it was a hit. I just wonder how much reach it actually had across India. Were there other programs trying to do that silent formula? The Oxford link, was a stronger source. I would look for more more of these scholarly articles to dig through, and possibly find more things up to date. Finally, the filmreference link doesn't feel necessary, as enough could be said with a link to an article about the short film, or better yet, a brief summary in one's own words.


 * Wording - Looking through beginnings, the diction lacks a knowledgable tone the subject. Phrases like "most likely," "usually," "many others," and "most famous" should not be used. More discussion on some of the followers of Linder's style of comedy should also be mentioned rather than ending the statement there. The long list of names with blue links to their biographies in other articles feels excessive. I would stick to actors that were major, or contributed to some significant silent film titles along with directors if possible.

The lead is a little weak, as I don't feel that mimes should be a reliable linking to what silent film was. Like I said at the start, the beginning of film was like an extension of theatrics, and the comedy bits were treading along those lines. A discussion of the acting techniques, such as the slapstick mentioned, would be better mentioned in a section of its own to talk about its evolution with film, because new innovations led to new ways to portray it.

Its format is also on the poor side, appearing as a short list of things that happened with the silent comedy genre with little details, especially with the modern era. With more information and paragraph formations it would look more rounded.

--Steffon Grice