User:Abigaelclark/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title
 * Communication
 * Article Evaluation
 * When looking at the article, there are many aspects that exhibit good qualities of a wiki page. The overall layout of the page is well through through and is easily accessible for readers and viewers. It is well positioned and gives insights and information on a variety of different types of communication. This article has also been revised and edited over the years and from searching through it's history I have noticed that it was started in 2001 and has had many revisions since.
 * However, within this article there is a warning sign that contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. As we have learned the purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train or give opinions. Thus, this is an issue that needs to be addressed and fixed to ensure that viewers and readers only are given facts.
 * However, within this article there is a warning sign that contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. As we have learned the purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train or give opinions. Thus, this is an issue that needs to be addressed and fixed to ensure that viewers and readers only are given facts.


 * Sources
 * https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0741088392009002003
 * https://academic.oup.com/joc
 * https://journals.sagepub.com/home/crx
 * https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Systemic bias


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article has quite a few errors and issues that need to be addressed. within this article there is a warning sign that contains; This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that presents the editors personal feelings or argument about the topic. It also contains weasel words, and needs additional citations added. It is also noted that there seems to be a difference in American vs. British uses, which needs to be noted in order for viewers to understand the information. By clicking on a selected random few sources, many do not show reliable sources of information or give opinionated cites.


 * Sources
 * https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/715021
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917255/
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260915483_Awareness_and_minimisation_of_systematic_bias_in_research

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Media manipulation


 * Article Evaluation
 * As I examine this article, it appears to have many of the correct qualities that a good wiki page should have. For example, the article's content is relevant to the topic, it is written neutrally, it appears that each claim has a citation and the citations also seem to be reliable. As I dive deeper into the talk page, there are many contributions from other Wikipedians and many interesting debates on the structure of the page. I think that this article could use some improvements in more specific areas such as examples. There is a fine line between examples and examples that showcase opinions and biases. Thus, when looking at some of the examples given (such as political example), there might need to be an alteration to ensure this page stays away from opinions.


 * Sources
 * https://datasociety.net/research/media-manipulation/
 * https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-01-13-social-media-manipulation-political-actors-industrial-scale-problem-oxford-report
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23738871.2018.1462395

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources