User:Stepagco/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?

Bee and Puppycat

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because Bee and Puppycat is one of my favorite animated shows and has recently received a reboot on Netflix. It had a deep impact on me and when I saw that its Wikipedia article was underdeveloped, I thought it would be enjoyable if I evaluated it myself. Allegri's series is relatively well-known around the world, having a relatively large cult following online. Given its popularity, I felt that it would be beneficial to many people if it could be improved in any way.

My preliminary impression of the article was that it was not very well-written. There are inconsistencies in grammar and punctuation, making it obvious that the words of multiple people were stitched together without any smoothing. The article manages to hit the minimum amount of information but certain sections are given more focus than necessary. There is also inconsistencies in the article; some of the information gets contradicted in different sections.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

The lead section is adequate; the first sentence does inform the audience of the topic of the article and includes brief descriptions of the remaining sections. It is missing a number of citations. It does not cite any of the production details of the show nor does it cite the comic book adaptation by KaBoom! studios. The brief plot summary in the first paragraph does not flow very well and gives certain information that can be left in the actual Plot section.

Content

For the most part, it appears that the content is up-to-date, but due to the lack of citations in certain sections, this cannot be fully verified. The Plot section was written poorly, with the second paragraph listing down all the subplots of the show when the first paragraph would have sufficed (albeit with major corrections to the content and adjusting the tone to be more neutral). The Characters section was similarly written, with the first sentence already contradicting the lead section:

"...an unemployed woman in her early twenties" versus "...a young woman who physically appears to be in her 20s"

There are also a lot of statements that come from the writer's own interpretation and analysis of the show. There are a lot of adjectives thrown around that are not necessarily objective observations. For example:

"Cardamon is a young boy who is Bee's landlord, business-like and mature for his age."

While I personally agree with the previous statement, the sentence is an unnecessary addition and could have simply be stated as "Cardamon is a young boy tasked with being Bee's landlord" or something to that effect.

This is not the only occurrence of extraneous information being sprinkled into the article; it happens in almost all the sections, such as adding random physical descriptions in the middle of the character outlines. In other sections, there is not enough information, such as in the Episodes section wherein some of the plots are described well while others only have one sentence explanations.

Tone

Like I mentioned earlier, there are certain parts of the article that show some bias from the writer. This is most apparent in the Plot and Character sections wherein the writer makes some judgments on the story and characters within the article.

Additionally, in the Reception section, most of the citations link to positive reviews, with only one fleeting sentence describing the negative reviews of the show. While the positive reviews will contain the name of the publisher along with a short description of their opinion on the show, the writer did not explicitly states the publishers who have criticized the show except for the two small citations that readers will need to click and be redirected to.

Citations

Citations can be far and in between, and there are many statements in the artciel without any backing sources. As most of the citations do not need to come from peer-reviewed material since most information is dispensed by media outlets, this makes it slightly harder to dictate whether a source is true unless it comes from the primary source themselves. The sources that do get cited from primary sources are current and up-to-date, such as those links that go to the animation studio's website.

After trying to click some links, I did find that one citation did not work (#44 seems to have been deleted) and one citation did not suit the sentence that it was supposed to reflect (#45 is a positive review when the article implied the link was going to a source with a negative review).

Organization and Writing Quality

The writing itself is coherent enough, but there are major areas of improvement. Some sentences do not flow smoothly from each other, and some of them are stilted and awkwardly worded. The article sounds more conversational than it is informative, like a person just speaking about a show that they watched. There are a few grammatical errors, mostly wrong use of punctuation and prepositions. The article is organized into neat sections where you should be able to find the information that you need.

Images and Media

Only two images are used and both adhere to copyright regulations:

The logo of the first season is aptly captioned and it catches the reader's attention. Logos are a very good way to start a Wikipedia page as it represents the entire brand/media.
The second photo is a blurry screencap of the pilot episode of the TV show. While the caption is adequate, it could have been shortened to just the first sentence. A different photo could have been used to show the cast of characters (or at the very least, the two titular characters) at a better resolution and a better caption. It would be very helpful if a photo would be used to indicate characters by naming them sequentially (i.e. from left to right) to remove the need of writing the characters' physical descriptions. The image is also awkwardly placed in the middle of the Characters section, or it could have been resized to fit the format better.

Talk Page

This article is rated as a Start-class and is a part of four different WikiProjects. There are a few discussions ongoing, but most comments are dated at least two years ago. There are not a lot of discussions regarding the most recent changes to the article, and it appears that these changes were not previously discussed on the Talk page before being posted. Most of the discussions sound very respectable, with many replies showing that each Wikipedian was willing to listen to other people's opinions. There was a small mention of vandalism occurring on both the Talk and article pages, but it sounds like at least one of the editors on the Talk page was actively trying to prevent that from happening further.

Overall

There is much room for improvement and I completely agree with the classification of this article. It provides enough meaningful content to be understood, but it is definitely not comprehensive and leaves much to the imagination. The few bits of information that it contains should give most readers enough information to investigate further on the topic, but adding more citations could help make that process easier. A more neutral tone should be used in certain sections and fact checking any statement with citations would be greatly appreciated. It could also be cleaned up of all its grammatical mistakes to make reading the article much easier.