User talk:Jayhy15/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Name of article: Movie star

I chose to evaluate this article because I am still getting familiar with choosing articles of Wikipedia, and this one stood out to me when I was searching for a topic. Furthermore, I chose to focus on Movie Stars because it's a fun topic to research about and learn more about how it got started. Lastly, we tend to hear everyday about these famous celebrities and their lives all over social media and news coverage, so why not focus on a topic we hear about everyday.

Lead: The lead of the article Movie Star gives a introductory sentence that describes what the topic will be about. It gives a good understanding of the definition of what movie star means and what they use the term for. The lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections since the definition talks about how movie stars are advertised, and later on they provide examples of how celebrities got their recognition. Furthermore, the lead does not include information that is not presented in the article because the introductory sentence gives a specific description of what exactly they will talk about. Overall, the lead is concise because it gives a simple explanation of what the article will be about making it brief and catching your attention wanting to read more about the topic.

Content: The article's content is relevant to the topic because it begins talking about how movie stars didn't exist in the early days when silent movies were a thing. It continues explaining how by 1909 two actresses became getting recognized but no one knew their names due to how in the early days actresses would not get recognition using their names. The article later on gives the example of how one actress worked with a pictures company and they were the first to begin giving promotions by using billing credits and marquees. It ends in talking about list of famous actors that finally get recognition in various ways. The content is not up to date since it only talked about the early days and does not have information on actors from our recent days. The content that was provided was useful because it gives you an idea of how actors got promotions and who are some of the famous actors for earlier days. The content that is missing would be as previously stated up to date information. It would be useful to be able to compare the early days to now to see how much movie stars and ways of promoting has changed.

Tone and Balance: The article is neutral because it gives examples of both male and female actors. There are no claims that appeared heavily biased towards a particular position since all the information presented was just a way to show how promotions got started for actors and there was no opinions. The viewpoints were not overrepresented or underrepresented because it gave examples of various actors and never focused on one actor for the whole article. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another because the article does not provide information that makes you pick a side, it is an article to inform you and teach you about movie stars.

Sources and References: The facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary source of information and you can see at the bottom there are numerous links of references. In addition, if you check the reference links you can see how for instance an actor has various links that talked about them proving the article has secondary sources. The sources are thorough because they are detailed and provides information about the topic. The sources are current because if you go to the reference links you can see a variety of dates from 2005 to 2020. Lastly, when clicking on a few links they all worked which was great.

Organization: The article is well-written, consider, clear and easy to read because it does not provide information that is un-useful or words that are complicated to read. I would recommend this article to those who want to know briefly about movie stars and how their recognition began. While reading the article I did not notice any grammar or spelling errors. The article is well organized because the lead of the article did not provide too much information but just enough to get an idea of what movie stars are. Then, the information given was enough and flowed well together starting from the early days and building up.

Images and Media: The article did include images that enhance understanding of the topic. For example, at the beginning it showed a picture of one of the first known movie stars in 1916 with a poster of her being advertised. The images provided are well captioned because it briefly explains what the picture is about. The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulation because under the pictures there are links referring back where they obtained that picture and this shows how it is cited. The images are laid out in a visually appealing way because it is not too much that it is to the point that overwhelms you.

Checking the talk page: If by conversations going on behind the scenes refers to the edit history the conversations happening is more about correcting grammar errors that happened and trying to get it up to date. The article is not part of any WikiProjects. This topic has not been discussed in our class but if it was I believe it would differ on the actresses chosen on this article. In our class we would probably recognize different actors and celebrities that were presented in the article, and talk about more of the recent actors.

Overall impressions: The article's overall status is that it was a good article to read if you just want a simple brief description. the article's strength is that it did a good job on presenting various names of popular actors and a good amount of pictures that doesn't overwhelm you. The article can be improved by adding information that is more updated. For instance, about actors and celebrities now that have became popular so the person reading the article can see the flow from the early days to now. I would asses the article's completeness by being in the middle. I say this because it is not the perfect article but also not the worst. It could improve on having more details but as previously stated it works great if you just want a brief understanding.

Overall evaluation: Do you believe it is necessary to add more about recent popular actors or keep it the way it is which focuses on actors that were popular in the early days? Jayhy15 (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC) Jayhy15