User:Kboles2000/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?

Media culture

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I'm very interested in media culture and how that effects people today. Because our society is so heavily media driven, it's important to understand how the creation and consumption of media effects us mentally and socially.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section: This article does an okay job of introducing the topic with the first few sentences explaining what media culture is. It discusses the different names media culture can adapt as well as introducing some of the main aspects of media culture like consumerism, advertising, dominant ideologies, etc. It does, however, bring up topics that aren't discussed anywhere else in the article such as Theodor Adorno, who was mentioned once in the intro, and never appeared in the rest of the article. On the other hand, mass media through religion is one of the sections in the article, and it isn't mentioned in the introduction

Content: The content of this article is very out of date with the most recent reference being from 2013, almost a decade ago. Especially considering how much has changed and evolved with media and media and culture within the last few years, updating sourcing should be a main concern. One of the big things this article is missing is a section on social media. It mainly focuses on media in ways of television, news, and radio. However, all the information it does include is very relevant to the topic.

Tone and Balance: This article is very one sided. Half of the sections are discussing some of the negatives that come from a media culture, and the other half are neutral based arguments on how media culture effects people as consumers just in general, and also how media is religion to some people as well as how the Catholic Church is basically a media driven entity.

Sources and References: As I said below all of the sources are from a decade ago. One of the sources is duplicated in the reference list, one shows a 404 error when you click on the link, and some don't seem relevant to the topic.

Organization and Writing Quality: Overall the organization and writing quality of this article are pretty decent.

Images and Media: This article has no images or media.

Talk pages: the talk page only has one entry, and it was fixing one of the links in a source.

Overall: This article as a whole needs some work. It needs updated sourcing, and the addition of topics that have come up within the last 10 years. Some of these may include: media culture and the effects on mental health, media addiction, positive aspects of media culture, discussions on social media.