User:Rpaylor/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Bell Let's Talk

• The article does a great job staying relevant to the topic of the social movement, Bell Let's Talk. There were only two instances where campaigns that stemmed from the Bell movement were described in detail, but they were still relevant to the overall topic. The organization of the article also made it easy to follow and connect to the main theme. The article has been frequently updated, and even has detailed additions from the current year.
• On first glance, the article seemed very objective with facts to back statements. After reading the warning sign that the main contributor is closely related to the subject and most citations were based off primary sources, it appeared to me that the article wasn't so neutral. There has been lots of criticism over the intent of the movement, specifically that it was a way to get free advertising, opposed to the declared mission statement of aiding mental health issues. The article makes many claims about the intentions of the company, and I think it is impossible to make assumptions on someone else's intentions. However, if I were to have not read the warning message or checked sources, I would not have noticed the bias.
• The criticism section of the article is underrepresented. It only includes a couple short paragraphs at the bottom of the page, and doesn't provide much detail to the full scope of criticism the movement received.
• Out of all the citations I checked, all the links worked and supported the claims of the article
• Most all facts are cited with a reference, but many of those references are from a primary source. The bias is noted as a warning message in the beginning of the article referencing the need for more neutral sources and content.
• Much of the Talk page includes discussion on how to make the article less biased with fewer primary sources. there is also talk about condensing sections and paying close attention to minor edits like word choice.
• The article received a B-class rating. It is also a part WikiProject Television and WikiProject Canada.
• Contribution to the article's Talk page: Talk:Bell Let's Talk
  • Agreed. I think that continuous yearly updates isn't sustainable in the long-term and contributes to the article being written like an advertisement. The information about the organizations that received donations is also rather lengthy. Maybe summarizing the total contributions and referencing key impacts like the largest endowments, the most note-able research projects, and supporters of the campaign would help condense the section? --Rpaylor (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)