User:SlipperySpinner/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

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?
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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

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?
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?

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?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

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?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
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.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?
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?

Images and Media

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?

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?
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?

Overall impressions

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

I decided to evaluate the article about Film for this evaluation.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose it because I am in the film group in our class and will be focusing on a film-related topic for the final assignment, so I thought it would be good to go over film. My preliminary impression of it is a good one. I'm seeing a brief overview of film, history of it, the whole filmmaking process, and different types of films. I think it gives a good and quick insight into film without being too heavy or dense in a specific area.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

The lead section on this article is short and sweet and gets to the point. It gives a detailed definition of film. I don't think it's overly detailed. In fact, I wonder if more can be put in it. I know it's meant to be a brief, but there's a lot about film. Too much may be distracting, so this I think in the end works.

Content

The content in this article appear to be up to date. According to the talk page, the last edit was made just over a week ago, on February 13th. It includes film theory, history, terminology, production, and the role of film in culture. Ranges from past, currently about film, and how it has influenced others.

Tone and Balance

To me, the tone and balance of the article looks neutral. It mentions different sides, but doesn't lean more towards one or the other. The Industry section talks about film industry beginnings and locations with heavy film presence, including Hollywood, Bollywood, and the Babelsberg Studio near Berlin.

Sources and References

Some of the sources and references don't seem to be from highly reputable places. I clicked on one source and it took me to The Straight Dope Message Board, which sounds weird already. Looking at it, it had a Reddit-like style to it, where anybody online can just comment and answer, or claim they have the answer. There are a few links to IMDb, CNN, and Variety, to name a few. I also noticed a lot of [citation needed] notes, especially in the last four sections under the History category.

Organization and Writing Quality

I think it has a great organization, and the quality of writing is good. It just makes sense. History, Film theory, Industry, Terminology, Production. You learn more and more about film, similar in ways to the order we learned about it in school. Chronologically, it works well. The writing also was done in a way to provide good information, detailed info, in a way that is easy to digest, using common wording.

Images and Media

Images and media are placed throughout the article in an organized manner. The History section has gifs of the different types of film throughout the years. It also includes a link to the full version of "A Trip to the Moon", an important piece of film history. One image that seems out of place is a portrait of Salah Zulfikar, an Egyptian Cinema actor. It sits at the end of the History section and the beginning of the Film Theory section, so the location of it doesn't really work. It's super specific, an actor in the golden age of Egyptian cinema. I've never heard of him before. This may work better in an article about Egyptian Cinema, but I don't think here. There's another picture of him and I believe his wife at the very bottom of the article, by the Animation section. Again, not relating to the topic it's near. In the entire article, there's only two mentions of Salah's name, and it's in the caption of these two photos.

Talk Page Discussion

There's not really much discussion in the Talk page. There's one discussion about 2 months ago explaining how "film is not an exclusively American thing", and someone responded thanking him for the pickup. It's part of three WikiProjects: WikiProject Film / Core / Filmmaking, WikiProject Media, and Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core. In this Talk page, a lot of the talks seem to be more factual, smaller detail things, not whole pictures or big ideas about film. Not much about it in society, social aspects of it.

Overall Impressions

I think this Film article is overall well written and provides great detail about many aspects of film. I think adding some societal influences of film can help to show the impact it can have. Talking more about it's connection and assistance in todays cultures with current events. Also, changing those pictures of Salah would just make me feel better!It is well developed, but can use just a bit more info on some topics.

(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.)