User:TaskRabbit14/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

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

Name of article: One-Punch Man
I chose to evaluate this article because of the guidance of the exercise directions. Among other suggestions, it proposed going to a WikiProject that interested me. As I am personally an avid Webcomic reader, I went to the Webcomics WikiProject, and from there chose the first mentioned Webcomic I recognized - One Punch Man

Lead

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

The Lead is generally clear. It lays out the basic details of the Webcomic, such as its creator and date of publication and quick success. It additionally briefly details the creation of the Webcomic's remakes as digital manga and as an animated adaptation. I would critique the inclusion of a sentence about the cultural origin of the Webcomic's name in the first paragraph. It would make more sense to include it in a section about the conception of the comic (currently, details about the conception of the comic are scattered throughout the article).

Content

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?

Content evaluation

The article's content is relevant to the topic. As the topic is about a webcomic adapted to several other media forms, there are sections for the plot, as well as for facts, production, and reception of the various media forms. Unusually for an article of this type (I have viewed several other anime/webcomic articles before), there is no section on the cast (there is a link to a separate article for the cast), nor is there a chart of the episodes with summaries. In fact, there is only one section that is actually about the content of One-Punch Man, which is the Plot section.

I noted a distinct overuse of very, very long quotations in the reception section of the article. However, I am not sure if this is genuinely criticize-able, since the point of the section is to capture what people said/think about One-Punch Man.

Tone and Balance

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

The article feels largely neutral, and this is enhanced by how much of the article is just listing facts about the production and release of the various media of One-Punch Man. The one place I felt was oddly, and perhaps non-neutrally covered, was the series subsection of the reception section. For a show with two seasons, there is a very odd disparity in the coverage of the two seasons. There is only one relatively small paragraph dedicated to covering the first season, and it pretty much only details how much of an amazing success the first season was. The second season takes up all three other paragraphs, some of which are two to three times as long as the single paragraph for the first season. These paragraphs on the second season are pretty much dedicated to covering the controversial nature of the second season, presenting it as generally negatively received. However, it does take time to detail what parts of the second season did receive praise, so I hesitate to call it overly biased. I'm honestly worried about my own ability to evaluate this neutrally, since I am very much in agreement with the first season being excellent and the second lackluster. The views presented mirror all I can ever recall seeing. So although I can identify these selective presentations of views, I struggle to say they are incorrect.

Sources and References

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?
Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The sources are not all current day, but they are at least current to when content of One-Punch Man was released. The sources are not particularly diverse - the grand majority of them are from Anime News Network and Weekly Shonen Jump (for when a chapter of One-Punch Man is cited directly), though other sources like The New York Times do pop up occasionally. A large enough majority of content comes from Anime News Network that the article is deeply at risk of being biased towards whatever bias that source carries. It is possible that this is due to the bottle-neck effect of anime/manga news travelling from Japan to the West through the small intersection of people who qualify as: 1) fluent enough in Japanese and English to translate competently; 2) are interested in manga/anime; and 3) run or work for consistent, large-scale news platforms. The market for information on this stuff is relatively small, and so it makes sense that Anime News Network got overused. I noticed that the other notable anime/manga news networks were also cited, such as CrunchyRoll, so it doesn't appear other options were ignored.

Organization

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

The article is well-written. Although it felt as if there was very little in the way of content dedicated to the content of One-Punch Man, all content was organized efficiently and focused around the headers. I noticed no grammatical issues, although it felt as though direct quotes were made too long for standard convention.

Images and Media

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

Only one image was used in the article, the 'profile pic', which is the first volume of the manga adaptation. I have no idea if this is within Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The image does contain citations for source, copyright owner, purpose of use, etc. The uploader noted that it could not be replaced with free media because free media is not available, and provides justification in the 'Minimal use' section.

Checking the talk page

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

There are only a few conversations going on in the talk page. The main conversation going on is about the way to present the name of the webcomic. As Japanese webcomic/manga artists often choose to do, the name as originally written in Japanese used partial Japanese and partial English conventions in very non-conventional, technically incorrect ways for artistic style. This has led to some people misunderstanding the actual title of the webcomic (ex: Onepunch-man vs One-Punch Man), and many misplaced but well-meaning attempts to change the title.

Overall impressions

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

The article's status is that it is active, but at a slow pace. It must be occasionally updated to reflect the new plot and reception of new chapters being released. The article is strong in presenting the plot in a generally correct and informative way that makes the original content seem worth a read, without being so informative that it precludes a need to actually read the source content. The article seems relatively complete. It would be nice to see coverage of the story that lead to such a lackluster second season, details about the production schedule and such. This would help provide nice context to the multiple negative reviews the article details.