User:Thomsaleme/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Son of Zorn

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it was a short-lived TV show that I absolutely loved when it aired but it promptly got cancelled and I never even met anyone who knew of it. Thus, I figured I would look at the Wikipedia article about it and see how well developed it was. My preliminary observation is that it was super short and did not include much detail.

Evaluate the article
Lead section


 * The lead does have a concise sentence that describes the main essence of what the article is about
 * The lead does not describe the sections of the article to be honest. It is extremely short overall and only gives the bare bones of the topic. Admittedly, there is not much on the article in general to reference but still, no sections are described.
 * Everything in the lead is also mentioned somewhere else in the article.
 * The lead is overly concise in my opinion. Someone reading it would not understand much about the topic other than the fact that it's a TV show and who the people and companies involved in it are.

Content


 * The content is definitely relevant to the topic, as it does all relate to the show.
 * The content is up to date, as the show was cancelled a while ago and that is noted there. As fas as I know, nothing else has happened to the show since.
 * In my opinion there is missing content. This page does not really include any information on the reason or reaction to the cancellation of the show, there is nothing about fan reception of the show, ratings for the show are not discussed. Admittedly, I do not know if there are sources for these things, but regardless these are things I would like to see on a show's Wikipedia page. Additionally, there is a lot of aspects of the plot that are not included in the episode descriptions. Nothing is out of place though.
 * There is nothing about underrepresented populations in this article, although I am not sure how that would be included here anyways.

Tone and Balance


 * The article is definitely neutral. It is very matter-of-fact and does not include any opinions.
 * Nothing here seemed biased, it was all very factual and objective.
 * There are no viewpoints in this article in general, it is only facts and thus there are no viewpoints that could even be overrepresented.
 * There are no minority viewpoints to be described to begin with.
 * There are no attempts at persuasion at all in this article. Once again, it is fully objective and fact-based.

Sources and References


 * It does not seem like everything is cited. I could not tell where the episode descriptions came from, they seemed to just be the synopsis provided by the production company which would not be a secondary source. Additionally, much of the cast is missing citations and the whole "Premise" section lacks citations. The rest is all cited though.
 * I do think the sources provided are thorough. There was not much coverage of this show in general, yet there are a lot of citations provided. I doubt there was much more to find.
 * Since the show is cancelled and nothing new has occurred to it, I believe the sources are current.
 * I do not know who all the sources are but the sources are mostly just articles on the show and that is the best anyone could do with this I think.
 * Unfortunately, I do not think there would be any serious academic literature on this show.
 * The links I clicked on all worked.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * The article is very concise and easy to read. Nothing was confusing.
 * I did not notice any errors in the writing while reading it.
 * The article is broken down into good sections. I just wish there were more sections, but given the amount of information on the article I think it is organized well.

Images and Media


 * There is only one image, the title card of the show. It is better to have multiple images, but even if you are only going to have one I do not think this is a good one as it does not show the mixed animation/live action nature of the show.
 * There is no caption on the only little image on the page. So no, it is not well captioned.
 * I am not sure, but I think there could possibly be copyright issues with this image as it is not cited at all.
 * The one image is in a nice little area but I would not say it is especially appealing at all.

Talk Page Discussion


 * There are two discussions on the talk page, one about the use of a slang term that was then replaced and another discussion about a fact from the show being wrong, which was then corrected.
 * The article has a start rating and is considered low importance. It is part of the American Television and just regular television Wikiproject.
 * I do not understand this question. We have not covered this topic in class.

Overall Impressions


 * The article's status is mediocre in my opinion. It provides the bare minimum but does not go beyond at all and could use improvement in citations.
 * The strengths of the article is that is is extremely concise and objective. There is not any fluff or any type of bias or opinions.
 * The article could be improved by adding much more information. As is it is very bare and does not include any more than the bare minimum for an article of this type. Also some additional citations and pictures would help.
 * I think the article is a little underdeveloped but it does not have any glaring holes. Thus, it does not absolutely need more development but it would be greatly improved with additional development.