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

• Fahrenheit 451 Fahrenheit 451
• I am choosing this article for a class, but it stood out in the list of controversial books because my friend read it and said it was sublime.

Guiding questions

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes it is. It is very short and clearly defines the book.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Yes it goes over the plot, themes, author, and reception
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Not really, everything in the lead is detailed in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is only a paragraph long and is very concise and short.

The lead is a typical good Wikipedia article lead. One that is short, to the point, and gives a general overview of the article to come. One criticism about the lead is the fact that the organization in the lead is not consistent with the organization of the article's main sections. I feel that lead could've been stronger if the article followed the structure presented in the Lead: background, history, awards, and adaptations.

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
  • Yes. Everything is about the book or its author.
• Is the content up-to-date?
  • Yes, the last edit was on the 16th of September 2020.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No. All the content is relevant.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • Not really. The topic itself is not dealing with underrepresented topics or groups.

The overall content was very neutral and gave a great summary of the book and the author as well as the feedback/reception to the book. The article also goes into detail about almost everything that is needed for a comprehensive summary of what the book is about as well as the context of everything.

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral?
  • Yes, there was no bias in the article as I read it.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, all claims were neutral and gives an unbiased take on the reaction the book produced.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No, most sections of the article were given the same length, expect for things that needed more space and had more information.
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • There is not really a position the article can take, so it does not try to favor any position

The tone of the article is scholarly and informative. It does not take any particular sides in the summary and reception of the book, signaling that there was no bias when writing the article. The article also doesn't use many biased signal verbs also adding to the neutrality of the article.

Guiding questions

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes most to all the facts in the article have reliable secondary sources, especially the reception portion of the article has a lot of references.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes
• Are the sources current?
• Yes some of the sources are even from 2020
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes there are multiple female authors in the references, as well as African American authors.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • yes

Overall the article has a very comprehensive reference list with over 120 references. One critique that I had with the references is the fact that some of them included news sources, sometimes which are biased and subjective instead of objective. For a quality article, objectivity is the goal, and having news sources can sometimes compromise this goal.

Guiding questions

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes many sections are short, and detail is added to sections that need it.
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • No really. The intro that should show the structure of the article does not follow the structure of the different parts of the article.

Overall, I feel that the organization is the poorest part of the article, for it does not have a structure that flows well. The lead of the article should set up the order of the main bodies of the article, and this article fails to do so. The intro goes: history, reception, awards and adaptations, while the actual article is ordered: Plot, Characters, History, Writing, Publication, Reception, Themes, adaptations.

Guiding questions

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Not really, there is only one image, that being of the cover of the book
• 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?
  • no

I feel that the images and media of the article is the other weak spot of the article. I feel that the writers could've used more images to enhance the reading experience. I feel that especially the part of the article about the adaptations could have used an image or two to show what kind of interpretations others have had about the book.

Guiding questions

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • The conversations are mainly about specific facts about the article, as well as the sources that go with those facts.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • it is rated B class in all aspects. it is involved in the Science Fiction, Novels, and Philosophy WikiProjects.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • Many of the conversations are a lot more formal than I thought. Based on the articles concerning hate that we've read in class, it was surprising to me that people were so polite about different (as I would see) petty changes.

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status?
  • Overall it is a B-Class article.
• What are the article's strengths?
  • The articles strengths are the clarity, comprehensiveness, as well as its neutrality.
• How can the article be improved?
  • I feel that the article could be improved if its organizations was more well structured and it had more of an interesting look.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
  • I feel that the article is very well developed, but is missing certain aspects that would make it stand out.

Overall, I would say that the Fahrenheit 451 article is a very well written article. Not only is it very clear, giving a great summary of the book in a few paragraphs, but it also gives a lot of detail to those who want to learn more about the book. The article also gives a very balanced take on the context as well as the reception of the book, making it have a neutral and scholarly cadence. Although the article could have had more media to spice up the bland formula, as well as have a better structure to make the reading experience more intuitive, it still did an excellent job of presenting the information to the reader. I feel that a B-Class rating is fitting for the article as a whole.

• 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: