User:Viktordiaz2727/Evaluate an Article


 * Name of article: Frankenstein authorship question/ Frankenstein authorship question
 * One of the available articles that drew my attention was the Frankenstein Authorship Question article. Frankenstein is a classic that presented an anti-hero and sympathetic view to the "daemon" which allowed us to have insight into why a monster is created and the view that perhaps a monstrous individual is forced into his lifestyle through societal neglect and abuse instead of the standard perception of the stark dichotomy between hero and villain.  This novel has been dear to me for many years, I have read it many times and it has helped draw me into a lifelong love of literature. Therefore the question of its authorship has drew my interest into its historical and penmanship nature outside of its artistic existence.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence concisely describes the overall nature of the article by describing the issue at hand, which is the historical nature of the novel as well as the individuals who are involved in the conversation of potential authorship of the piece of literature. However, I do believe that it should have had more of a sequential and chronological break down of what is to be expected within the article. It lacks some information that would help to review the sections of the article but just simply states what the article is about and what was the conclusion without much emphasis on major points that will be described. So the Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections. However, the Lead also does not include information in the Lead that is lacking within the entirety of the article itself. So the Lead is a little too narrowly concise. A little more information of the major points would have helped.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The major sections included are 1. Background 2. Chronology 3. References 4. Bibliography. I do not believe that these structures give enough information of what is occurring within the article. The Headings and Subheadings seem insufficient to give the reader an idea of what there is to expect within the reading. However, there is a few diagrams with well written captions that help with the nature of the article.

The article contains information that is completely relevant to the issue at hand. It details the ideology, writing style, influence, penmanship, philosophy of Percy Shelley and how it relates to the essence of the novel Frankenstein itself. However, what is missing that could be pertinent is not only why Percey Shelley may have not written the text but also information on Mary Shelley and why she is indeed the author of the novel. There is little information of the author of consensus, Mary Shelley. This is an odd omission since there is no proof as to why Mary Shelley is the actual author. It would have proven to make the article stronger if it contained unbiased research on both individuals rather than just one. The content contains recently published information of the subject of the wiki-article itself.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral despite it lacking more information on Mary Shelley. It is neutral because it only gives factual information and it gives information for both arguments that Percey Shelley wrote it and the other arguments of why he did not read it which allows the reader to come up with their own conclusion of authorship based upon the facts. There appears to be no real bias here and there is no language that appears to favor or attempt to persuade the reader from one point or another.

There are no viewpoints that are overly represented nor underly represented in the face of Percey Shelley himself as the author. It is a well-balanced journey of the arguments for Percey and against Percey.. The only under represented viewpoint is that of Mary Shelley herself as the author. As said before, it lacks the information of why she is the author or why she is not.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are a total of 17 paragraphs which include a total of 18 sources for the information provided within the article which indicates that the amount of information gathered matches the output of the wiki-article itself. The information that are cited come from scholarly and peer-reviewed journals which really emphasizes the reliability of the research contained therein. The sources are relatively current, containing researched published as late as 2018 and 2015, which is valuable since Frankenstein was published in 1818. It contains articles from the Huffington Post and various books as well as journals. It pulls its information from various sources which alleviates the fear that a single, dominant source would potentially skew the information in a single direction. The available links work as well which allows a fact check to be permissible.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is clear, precise and decently organized although the titles and subtitles should be divided a little better for the information inside of the article. For example, there should be a title on the ideology and writing style of Percey or a title on the research about the handwriting of Percey himself. Another way to organize the article better would have to made a section on the arguments of critiques on who they believed the author was.

Grammatically, there are no errors that I observed. It had well-thought out language and in-depth information. The only problem I observed was that there are two Shelleys so spelling out the entire name to emphasize which Shelley we were reading about at the moment. Sometimes it was not clear due to the lack of clarification.



Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The article contains images of the handwriting of Percey Shelley of manuscripts which does help bring to light the idea of who wrote the novel. They are well captioned. However, it would have been even superior if the images contained an original of the Frankenstein's penmanship, an image of Percey Shelley's handwriting on a non-related piece of literature and another image of the handwriting of Mary Shelley on a non-related piece of literature to help the reader deduce who is the actual author based off of that evidence.

The images are as visually appealing as can possibly be in reference to this article's objective. It is based off of authorship, so writing on a page is as exciting as it can possible be. Therefore, I believe that it was well sought out and implemented despite the lack of inherent excitability of the article itself.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The conversations are very negative in regard to this article on the talk page. Individuals are stating that a great way to improve it can be done by deleting it. They believe that the information comes from limited sources and that the information is of primary research and not many secondary sources. I do agree that the title of the article is misleading as the commentators suggested since it does only explain from one-side the contributions, or lack thereof, of Percey Shelley but not the overall question of authorship which would include more information on Mary Shelley. It contains no rating as of yet on the quality scale. It is part of WikiProjects Women Writers.

This topic does not have information discussed in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article was decently done since it provided with detailed information on the potential authorship, revisions and contributions of Percey Shelley. Its strengths lie in its scholarly research, it is well cited on nearly every single line from various sources, it details concisely the arguments of Percey Shelley's contributions and it does so in a stylistic and interesting way by going through the philosophy of Percey Shelley and how it relates to the essence of Frankenstein itself. The article may be improved by providing more information on Mary Shelley's definitive authorship of the book, or to change the title of the article as those on the talk page have suggested, since the overall argument that would be needed to coincide with the title is underdeveloped. Due to this, I would state that it is underdeveloped since I do not feel I have gathered complete information on the question of the authorship of the book since I feel like I lack information on the purported author.