User:Tylerjperry/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am lookin at the article Anti-fan.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the article because the topic interested me, as there are things I am an anti-fan of that I enjoy hating on, though I never go to the extreme lengths some anti-fans go to. It matters because it shows that something getting popular isn't always because it's good, it can become popular because anti-fans enjoy making fun of it. It's also important because anti-fans can do terrible things to the things or people they hate; such as doxing or abusing them physically or emotionally. For example, I've seen voice actors getting death threats because people didn't like the character they voiced. My preliminary impression was that the article was too small, and it put too much focus in some areas and not enough focus in others.

Evaluate the article
The lead includes an introductory sentence, but I think it could have described the topic a bit better. The lead is concise and doesn’t have information that isn’t in the rest of the article, but it doesn’t describe its major sections.

All the content is relevant to the topic, but a lot of it comes from older articles. There isn’t a lot from this year or the past few years. All the content fits with the article, but a lot of sections have little in them. It tries to cover Wikipedia’s equity gaps and topics related to historically underrepresented populations by talking about anti-fans hating each other due to things like race, sex, and other stuff; however, the article doesn’t go into any more detail.

The article appears very neutral and doesn’t feel biased towards any position. It doesn’t under or over represent viewpoints or attempt to persuade the readers in favor of a certain position, though the viewpoints of anti-fans hating fans from minority groups, or if anti-fans hate people or things because they are from or are made by a minority group wasn’t explored that much.

All the facts are backed up by secondary sources of information, though a lot of them aren’t current. While they mostly look through, there aren’t a lot of scholarly articles and instead, come from a variety of books and websites. The articles are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and all of them are available with working links. Taking a quick look at the URI library site shows that there are a few good sources that could have been used, but not a lot.

The article could be clearer about what it’s saying, but it didn’t have any noticeable grammatical errors and was broken down into major points.

The article doesn’t have any images.

The big talking point in the Talk section was about fixing some links, though they were small conversations that stopped around 2018. The article has been rated the Start-Class on the quality scale and has received no rating on the importance scale. We haven’t discussed this topic in class.

Overall, I think it’s a very poor article that is underdeveloped. While it does provide a lot of examples of anti-fan behavior, it doesn’t go into a lot of depth for the other categories it brings up. If someone were to add more information to the other categories then it would be a lot better.

This is an important topic that relates to some of the readings and films we are studying. I wonder how you might integrate these ideas into the entry to improve it. --Renee Hobbs