User:Dknut1/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Little Red Riding Hood (1997 film)
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
I have chosen this article to evaluate, as it is relevant to what we are covering in class. We watched and analyzed this film as part of an assignment. I also wrote an essay on the film discussed in the article.
Lead
[edit]- 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
[edit]The lead does clearly and concisely describe the topic. It tells the name of the film, the year it was released, the director, the lead actress, and a description of the film. It covers the two major sections of the article, the plot and the cast. It gives a very brief explanation of the story, and names the lead actress. The lead references another version of the little red riding hood story, but other specific versions of the story are not mentioned in the article, only general other plot points. Otherwise, it is clean and concise, and it does not contain too much detail.
Content
[edit]- 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?
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
Content evaluation
[edit]The content of the article is relevant to the topic. It seems to be currently up to date, including external links from things as recent as 2015. The article does not necessarily appear to be missing any information, as it is simply telling the plot, cast, and awards the film has won. The only thing that appears to be missing is two other awards the film has won at other film festivals. All the content in the article does appear to belong, and is relevant to the topic of the article. The article does not address any topics pertaining to any underrepresented topics or populations.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- 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
[edit]The article is neutral. It does not contain any biased claims, and does a good job of simply sharing the proper information. I am not entirely sure if the article has a place for an analysis of the film, as that could turn biased, and not stay neutral, but otherwise all the topics are equally presented. This article does not try to persuade the reader to think one way or another, it is completely neutral.
Sources and References
[edit]- 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?
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The information in the article is backed by secondary sources. These sources do reflect the available information on the topic, and appear to be as up to date as possible. The sources are not from a diverse selection of authors. All but one of the links included in the article do work.
Organization
[edit]- 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
[edit]The article is very clean. It is easy to read, and the information is organized very well. All the major points of the article are separated into respective sections, that organize the information clearly. It does have a minor grammatical error found in the "Plot" section of the article.
Images and Media
[edit]- 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
[edit]The article only includes one image that is immediately visible. This is the film poster, at the top right of the article page. The other images are found when hovering the mouse over blue-highlighted words, which brings up a definition, and a corresponding image. All of these images do adhere to the copyright regulations. The image is placed in an appealing spot, and it fits well with the article.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- 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
[edit]There are not any conversations going on in the talk page. There is only one comment currently. The article is a part of a WikiProject, specifically WikiProject Film. It is rated as "Star-Class". In class, we took an analytical approach to discussing the film, and there was a lot of opinion and speculation involved. Wikipedia's means of discussing is just stating facts, to inform readers, and is neutral.
Overall impressions
[edit]- 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
[edit]The article appears to be in good shape. It gives the essential information, and is completely neutral. Staying neutral is a strong point for this article, as well as its organization. The article could potentially include more information, but this would require more extensive research. For what it is, the article is pretty complete.
Optional activity
[edit]- 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: