User:9u5t1n3/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Social media and television

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I think the interrelationship between social media and television, two very relevant platforms in today's day and age, is an extremely important aspect of today's technological culture. The relationship between social media and television allows us to do so many things as a society that we were not able to do before and provides many people with a variety of different communication abilities and options. My overall impression of the article is that it needs more up-to-date information that is relevant to our current realities, as well as better scholarly sources. However, the article is very well-developed with a great neutral tone.

Lead Section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes but could be improved.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, needs to be added


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything that is talked about in the lead is also talked about throughout the main parts of the article but it could be a bit more organized
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and contains a summary of the most important aspects within the overall subject. Can also be cleaned up a bit overall

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, everything talked about and covered throughout the article is relevant to the subject at hand


 * Is the content up to date? The article could use scholarly sources and academic articles that are more up to date and from recent years. The article could also benefit from newer, more relevant topics about the subject
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article could use more up to date topics throughout the article but other than that, there is no content that is currently published on the article 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? I don't think so but I would say the topic is quite relevant in today's society of technology and culture

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes, I do not see any problems with neutrality in terms of tone
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased towards a specific position? No, there really are no positions to take when it comes to the subject and the article does a good job of maintaining a neutral standpoint
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, the article could use more of a balance when it comes to the length of each aspect/paragraph/topic that is represented throughout
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? There's no mention of minority or fringe viewpoints, however, the topics talked about match up with the scholarly/academic journals and findings of the years mentioned.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade viewers in favor of one position or away from another? Not at all, no

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes most of the facts are backed up reliable, secondary sources but this area could be improved with more sources from recent years
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they reflect the available literature but more could be added
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the article sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. If any topics are added including marginalized groups of people, the article could use more to represent that aspect of the subject
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? Yes, some sources that are used are random websites/blogs that could be replaced by better, academic/peer reviewed journals
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all of the links work

Organization and Writing Quality

 * Is the article well-written - i.e Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the writing is concise and clear

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I can detect


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, everything is broken down into relevant topics but more could be added

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article could definitely use more images that enhance understanding of the topic
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the one image does have a well-written caption
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The image does not conflict with Wikipedia's copyright violations
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes but needs more

Talk Page Discussion

 * What kind of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Although there are no recent conversations that have taken place, all of the conversations revolve around how to better represent the article and what can be taken away/added
 * How is the article rated? Is it part of any WikiProjects? The article is of interest to many WikiProjects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Although we have only talked about the history of television in class, the difference is that the article does not include topics we have touched on which can be things I can add to the article

Overall Impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? The article is currently in the C range and can be greatly improved but nobody else is currently working on the article
 * What are the article's strengths? The article does a great job of managing a neutral standpoint and does not persuade viewers in any way. The article also has many concise, clear and important aspects that are represented throughout the article. Lastly, the article has previously been a part of WikiProjects and student assignments which confirms that accurate information has taken place with room to improve
 * How can the article be improved? The article could use many updated scholarly sources and academic journals to represent each aspect/paragraph covered throughout the article. The article could also use more images and better scholarly sources overall. Lastly, the article could use better representation on many different topics pertaining to the subject

How would you assess the article's completeness - ie. Is the article well-developed? Is it poorly developed or under-developed? The article is definitely well-developed but does need a substantial amount of improvements and updates