User:TheWarlock42/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
This is the article I am evaluating: Antihero

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The archetype of Antihero has always been one that fascinates me. The article appears to be lacking and needs some work, so I thought that dedicating my time here would be well spent.

Evaluate the article
-The Leading section of the article is well done with a lot of references. Tone is good overall and is in line with what I believe to be is a good summary. Clear and concise, the article starts well.

-There isn't a lot of content here to begin with. Most of it is extremely Eurocentric and is more of a listing of a brief history of western Antiheros than a comprehensive history. It is also extremely literary focused. The main issue is that for what's here, it isn't a lot and what isn't here would flush out the article a lot as well. The end of the article dips into the controversial as well.

-As stated before, the article is Eurocentric. All of the examples focus on examples from the western world and lean into the facets of them very hard. The most problematic aspect of the article is the last section where it attempts to describe Donald Trump as an antihero. This is skewing a lot of the neutral tone that Wikipedia strives to achieve.

-For what is there, most of the sources are well defined and come from a variety of different credited materials. This comes in a variety of different forms, including other encyclopedias, academic articles, as well as annotated versions of the works themselves. This is one of the strengths of the article.

-The article needs to have more sections and discussions beyond just the "history" of the term. The history itself is extremely limited, as well as deeper examples on why the characters mentioned in the article are antiheros. Otherwise, the article is well written and is grammatically correct.

-For the two images that are displayed, it well done for sure. Both show themselves as mini-articles that describe the picture and add to the overall look of the webpage. I think this is a great start to the page as well.

-The talk page seems much more like a bunch of nerds arguing over semantics that are not what I would consider neutral as a opposed to actually attempting to further the article. Most of what is taking place is advocating or dismissing lists of antiheros as opposed to focusing on the actual article of Antihero instead of simply listing them in the article List of Antiheroes.

-Overall, I would have to agree that the article isn't exactly C class, but rather a start article for a variety of different reasons. It is extremely short, it doesn't have a lot of substantial information, and the overall tone feels bias at certain points. It is well written and has a lot of good sources, but ultimately lacks in the "meat" of the article. This can be improved by attaining a wider variety of examples of Antiheroes, adding new sections beyond history, and focusing more so on the overall content of the article. It isn't poorly developed, but leaves a lot to be desired and needs to be bolstered up.

Feedback from Vetter
Hello - Great work on this article evaluation of antihero. It's a good choice to work on for this assignment because of how it matches your research interests, as well as because of the obvious developmental needs it demonstrates. You also did a nice job of answering the evaluative questions and making proposals for how the article can be improved. I think adding in more diverse examples to break up some of the Eurocentrism is a great idea, and maybe adding a new section that moves beyond history to describe the concept and its many facets.

Both of these would be great starting places for your editorial work.

Just keep in mind that you don't need to take the article to any kind of "final version" - the assignment requirements are


 * Minimum of 4 references cited and added to Wikipedia article
 * Minimum of 300 words added to Wikipedia article

I'm excited to see what you will do with this article. Keep in mind that a draft of your edits is due on Oct. 4.

I will see if I can get the problematic reference to Trump removed. I think it's a matter of scope. - DarthVetter (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)