User:Student.Madeline/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Go the Fuck to Sleep Go the Fuck to Sleep

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article to evaluate because the book is seen as controversial, due to the profanity included in it. Although it is marketed as a book for adults, critiques of the book see it as too profanity laced for something that a parent may confuse as a children's book.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes; the first sentence introduces the books title, author, and illustrator.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes; the lead includes a table with links to the different sections of the article.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No; no additional information is provided that is not mentioned elsewhere in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.
 * Overall, I would rate the article as having a fairly decent lead section. It is very concise and provides a good introduction to the book. The lead section could be improved by mentioning that the book is semi-controversial due to its profanity.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, up until 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some further content could be provided on how far reaching the controversy was. As the article is currently, the reception mainly focuses on the positive receptions.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No
 * Overall, the article contains good content; however, it could be improved by adding more information about the controversy the book received after publication.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No particularly heavy bias; lack of further evaluation about the book itself.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Negative reception seems to be underrepresented.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
 * Overall, the tone of the article seems to be from a neutral point of view, however the balance seems a little off. A heavy focus is on the positive reviews and reception of the article than on the controversy surrounding it, other than the mention of the heavy use of profanity.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * 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? Could be better
 * Are the sources current? No
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes and no.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Yes, since the article has been published there appears to be several peer-reviewed articles available that deal with the book and its controversies.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? A few don't.
 * The sources are what is mainly lacking in the article. There are more peer-reviewed sources that could be used when discussing the article's controversy, and a few of the sources cited either don't have links attached or have links that don't work.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * 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? To an extent.
 * The article could be organized better. As it is now, the lack of organization appears to be from others adding to the piece over time, so the article just needs to be cleaned up a little.

Images and Media

 * 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? No
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes
 * The cover of the book appears to be copyrighted. This may need to be amended based on the copyright policy of Wikipedia.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The main conversations are about the lack of discussion on the controversies and the source issue.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated start-class. It is a part of six different WikiProjects (Books, Children's Literature, Comedy, Freedom of Speech, Linguistics, Literature).
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The original author has not included the controversies, which is what we have focused on in class.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Start-class
 * What are the article's strengths? A clear and concise lead section; multiple different sections that showcase the different areas the book is included in.
 * How can the article be improved? Better balance and sourcing.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Slightly underdeveloped.