User:Xqchen9/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Good Omens
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Because I just finished reading this novel in winter break and found it really interesting.

Lead evaluation

 * The Lead has a sentence presenting the awards received by the book and a brief but good introductory describing the topic of the book. However, the summary is a little bit unclear here. It makes sense to readers who have already read the book but is likely to confuse those who haven't read Good Omens yet. I feel that they could leave out the subplots from the Lead and instead talk about it more detailedly in the main content.

Content evaluation

 * The article's content is relevant to the topic. It includes the summary, receptions, adaptions and some other aspects that people normally want to know about. The content is up to date. From the history page, viewers can see that the most recent change is made on Dec 26, 2019.
 * But there could be more information about the critques regarding the book, especially the reactions from the religious group.

Tone and balance evaluation

 * Most of the article is neutral. It introduce the book and other adaptations objectively.
 * When it comes to the receptions, the article only presents the positive ones. Praises are a bit overrepresented. It's understandable, considering a wiki page like this must be edited and written by fans.

Sources and references evaluation

 * The cover of the book is uncredited.
 * The article lacks sources related to the introductions of different international editions of the book.
 * Seemingly, all listed sources are current and working just fine. On the talk page, there are few actions that records someone has moved expired links.

Organization evaluation

 * The article is well written. It doesn't appear to have any grammatical or spelling errors (or it could be I didn't find one).
 * In the content, there could be another section for character introduction. Otherwise, the structure is pretty good.

Images and media evaluation

 * The article didn't include any image except a single book cover.

Talk page evaluation

 * The article is neither rated nor a part of any WikiProjects.
 * On the talk page, people are discussing details about some of the sub characters and the main plot. Two people brought up the concern that the book cover used here is uncredited. There are also discussions about moved or added-in links.
 * Differ from class: not everyone on the talk page gets a respond.

Overall evaluation

 * The article is a mid-developed piece waiting to be strengthen. It lacks important details regarding the plot and the characters, as well as the critiques, a wider reception and information about the authoriship.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: