User:Weirdcactus472/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

The Yellow Wallpaper

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I have chosen to review this article because it covers one of my favorite short stories, "The Yellow Wallpaper." The story itself is a significant piece of feminist literature, so it is important that the Wikipedia article is accurate. I was initially impressed by the length of the article. I was also pleased to see the many interpretations of the short story listed.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section

The article begins with a concise sentence describing what "The Yellow Wallpaper" is, identifying the topic for the reader. The lead also summarizes the plot, but it does not provide summaries of the other two sections of the article, "Interpretations" and "Dramatic adaptations". I do not think descriptions of these two sections would have been necessary. In general, I think the lead for this article is strong. It is concise but still informative. It also does not include any information not present in the rest of the article.

Content

The article deals with women's issues, which is considered to be one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. However, the content itself is all relevant to the topic as well as up-to-date.

Tone and Balance

Even though this article deals with political issues, it does not attempt to persuade the reader into any sort of position. In my opinion, feminism is not really a controversial issue anymore, so I think it must not be too difficult to relay the story's messages and impacts without holding a biased position.

Sources and References

The article has many citations throughout, and on skimming the list of references nothing looks out of place. The links seem to be working. There is a wide variety of authors, and the dates vary greatly as well.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is very well written, which I appreciate because it makes analysis much easier! The information is presented clearly with little embellishment. I found no grammatical/spelling errors, and I am easily able to skim through the sections to find the information I am looking for.

Images and Media

The article only includes two images, the cover art of a 1901 publication of the story, and a photo of the author herself. Both images are relevant to the topic as well as well-captioned. Neither violate Wikipedia's copyright regulations, as they are under public domain. Both images are positioned similarly, on the right-side of the article, but it is visually appealing and I would not change it. I would consider adding more photos.

Talk Page Discussion

There are not many active conversations going on behind the scenes of this article. The conversations that are happening concern people's varied interpretations of the text, and the style of writing is persuasive, honestly reminding me of my analytical essays in literature classes. The article is a part of the WikiProjects "Novels: Short Story", "Feminism", "Women's History", and "Women Writers". It is rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Overall Impressions

Overall, the article is very strong. It frames the story well, and offers an incredibly objective summary of the plot. If I were to improve this article, I might add a section on symbolism or motifs present throughout the story. However, this is not something I commonly see within Wikipedia articles and so I would still consider the article to be complete.