This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

• Name of article: Henry Ford II
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I became interested in Henry Ford II because of the recently made Oscar-nominated Ford v Ferrari.

Guiding questions

• 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, in the table of contents.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is pretty concise, mostly focused on Henry Ford II's professional life.

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content up-to-date? Yes. This is a biographical page about someone who has passed away, but there is mention of the recent 2019 Ford v Ferrari movie.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I'm not sure why there's a filmography section, especially since Henry Ford II doesn't appear on the page linked to the only entry there (the movie is called Thunderball, but Henry Ford II is not listed in the cast anywhere). It might be interesting to know that Henry Ford II was in a movie, but it's not cited, so it seems like it can't be confirmed.

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral? Mostly, yes, I think so, but in the career section, the theme of Henry Ford II's difficult management style is present throughout the narration of his life.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The claim that Henry had an aggressive management style. There are probably some memoirs of Henry II's close friends and colleagues that corroborate this claim, but for now it just seems like the author/editors of the page are trying to find a common theme weave in an out of Henry II's story.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, not really. The main focus of the article is on his career and influence on Ford Motor Company, which I think is appropriate. It might be interesting to hear about his children more, but maybe not essential to why he deserves and Wikipedia page in the first place (i.e. that he was president of one of the top most companies in America).
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it reads like a biography, just reporting facts.

Guiding questions

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All the facts seem to be, but I think there are some sentences that either need a source or need to be reworded to sound less like a claim the author of the page is making and more like just reporting of facts.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources for the page are a smattering of newspaper and magazine articles and books. I think there are probably more sources out there that can corroborate Henry II's story.
• Are the sources current? Yes, relatively. There are sources as recent as 2016 and there are sources as old as the 1960s.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes!

Guiding questions

• 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? Yes, but only one that I noticed: There's an incorrect tense (used a past participle instead of a present participle).
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Guiding questions

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There's a picture of Henry Ford II in 1963, which does enhance the understanding of the topic, but the only other picture on the article is one of Henry as an old man, sitting with some other people mentioned in the article. It doesn't seem totally relative to what's going on in the text surrounding the picture. One or two more pictures wouldn't hurt the page.
• 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? Yes

Guiding questions

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There aren't any real conversations, but there have been several posts, mostly about some additional information about his life that haven't necessarily been deemed important enough to include on the actual article.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is part of the WikiProject Biographies and is rated "start-class."
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We haven't discussed Henry Ford II specifically, but this page could be a little different because it's a biography. Possible sources for this page could have their own biases (e.g. a biography focusing on his business ventures or a biography focusing on his personal and family life), so that might be something to be careful of when synthesizing information to put on the page. There probably aren't too many scholarly journal articles on Henry Ford II.

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status? It seems to be in pretty good shape, but I'm sure there are many more things to be said about Henry Ford II, especially considering that the WikiProject has ranked it as a Start-class article.
• What are the article's strengths? The article is engaging and interesting to read. I like that it's brief and only focuses on the most important parts of Henry's life.
• How can the article be improved? The mechanical error I noticed could be fixed--and there are some other spots that could be re-worded--and maybe some more images, especially of people that are mentioned in the article.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think it's well developed, but could be developed more.

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

• Name of article: The Court Jester
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I really like this movie, and I wish more people knew about it. The article is available for editing and Wikipedia notes that it can be improved.

Guiding questions

The first sentence describes the genre and the lead actors, but maybe it could have some brief words about the plot?

The brief description could probably have a small overview of the plot, the cast, etc.

The portion in the lead about the film's reception could be moved to the actual reception section.

The lead needs to have more brief description of all the sections included in the article.

• 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? Kind of. The list of contents is there, but the actual paragraph mostly talks about the film's reception.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? A little bit. Actually, most of what's in the lead about the reception of the film could be moved to the bottom section and replaced by a brief description.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's overly detailed about the reception of the film.

Guiding questions

• 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? Missing some citations in the musical score section.

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it's just describing the plot. The reception section might need to be closely looked at for bias, but most of it is just reporting of stats and numbers from Rotten Tomatoes and other critics.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, it's pretty straight forward.
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, there's not analysis of the film. Just description.

Guiding questions

Will need to find sources for the musical score information. --> Will I just have to take that section out?

The number of reviews on Rotten Tomatoes has to be updated.

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, the musical score section doesn't cite any sources.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current? Yes. There are sources from the time period the movie was released and sources from the last few years.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Guiding questions

Production section --> Where to find sources for that?

• 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? Yes, there are a few, but nothing too major.
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, essential sections are present, but it might be interesting to have more information on production.

Guiding questions

--> Check copyright rules for including pictures of the actual movie

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, there's a picture of the movie poster.
• 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? Yes; there's only one.

Guiding questions

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is mention of using credible sources, the musical score, the reception of the film, and the lack of a production section.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It's associated with three WikiProjects and is rated start-class in all of them: WikiProject Film, WikiProject United States / American Cinema, WikiProject Library of Congress (those last two rate the article start-class, low importance).
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? n/a (but I wish we talked about this movie in class).

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status? Start-class; there is definitely a lot of room for improvement.
• What are the article's strengths? It has a pretty solid plot section, and there are some interesting sections I wouldn't have thought about including (e.g. musical score).
• How can the article be improved? Needs better overview in the lead, mentioning each of the article sections in brief; citations and fact-checking are needed in the musical score section; it's missing a section on the production of the film.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It's a little underdeveloped.

• 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: