User:Yc7718/Evaluate an Article

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

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.)

Evaluate the article
Lead section


 * A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it provides a brief overview of the themes touched upon in the book
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead sentence is not overly detailed. However, it could have had a brief sentence about what the book is about instead of talking about the book’s publication facts. There should be a sense of its notability in the lead.

Content


 * A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? In the article itself, the content that is present is very adequate.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article does address topics related to historically underrepresented and discriminate populations as the book’s main theme, one could argue, is racial inequality.

Tone and Balance


 * Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This comment, even with a reliable source, sounded heavily biased and without proper introduction and signal phrase: Atticus stands apart as a unique model of masculinity; as one scholar explains: "It is the job of real men who embody the traditional masculine qualities of heroic individualism, bravery, and an unshrinking knowledge of and dedication to social justice and morality, to set the society straight."
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I’d say that for the most part, the article did a good job of representing most of the core themes that the book touches on. Nothing felt as if it was overbearing or underbearing.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Fringe viewpoints were not discussed much in the article. In the talk section, however, there were some fringe opinions stated.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References


 * A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
 * 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? The years that the sources are from vary, however, they are mainly from post-2000.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Out of the many sources, it was hard to find historically marginalized individuals cited.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) For example, instead of Danuta Kean’s article in the Guardian titled “To Kill a Mockingbird removed from Virginia schools for racist language”, Jill P. May’s scholarly article “Censors as Critics: To Kill a Mockingbird as A Case Study” might have been a better option to highlight the censorship the book faces.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and writing quality


 * The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. The article has many headers that help the reader.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It includes minimal pictures. It can benefit from having more images.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The images are spread out which makes them more appealing than if they were constrained to one section.

Talk page discussion


 * The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is an interesting conversation titled “Justice for Mayella” : “In this book, we have a very good attorney cross-examining a rape victim in a way that would never be allowed in today's US courtrooms. It is astonishingly abusive to an modern enlightened person. It is in fact ILLEGAL now. To be blunt, Atticus accuses her of inviting Tom Robinson to fuck her. "She tempted a Negro" is the line in the closing that sticks out to me, slut-shaming her and accusing her of "jungle fever", to use the phrase popularized by Spike Lee. Scout, no doubt a very reliable 6 year old reporter, thinks Tom could not have beat Mayella on the right side of her face, since his opposing [left] hand was crippled in a cotton gin. That is the only evidence in his favor. I invite you to approach your next victim from the rear and beat her with YOUR right hand; your punches will land on the RIGHT side of her head. Why did we all think Tom was innocent when Harper NEVER SAID HE WAS?”
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a level 4- vital article. There are many WikiProjects such as "To Kill a Mockingbird (film)", "To Kill a Mockingbird (2018 play)", "To Kill a Mockingbird in popular culture" etc.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This article is different from how we talked about articles in class as it includes newspaper articles (that could potentially be biased) as sources. This might jeopardize the neutrality of the article.

Overall impressions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article is a level 4-vital article meaning it is one of the best articles on Wikipedia.
 * What are the article's strengths?  The article is well written and and easy to read. It is a comprehensive article that takes in hand lots of themes thoroughly.
 * How can the article be improved? More BIPOC sources and character evaluation
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is very well-developed.
 * For the most part, this article had very few shortcomings. It was rated as a level 4- Vital article. However, in my opinion, it could have elaborated on the characters more-- have a section dedicated to Scout, Boo Radley, Tom Robinson.
 * The inclusion of more BIPOC voices is key. The sources listed were mostly by white scholars. Especially for a book that is often quoted in regards to racial inequity, it is crucial to be intersectional.