User:Amay22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Social media and suicide

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I feel like it brings awarness the suicide. Suicide has been on the rise and people need to know what is a major outlet for it.

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? Yes,it does. (Social media and suicide is a phenomenon concerning social media's influence on suicide behavior.)
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, It hit the key points of the article. Cyberbulling, Social media influence on suicide, etc.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No, everything that was said in the lead is present in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is not overly detailed. It gives the key points of the article and explains further deeper into the article.

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? Yes, the article's topic is social media and the effects it has on on suicide. It gives negatives and positives.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The content is up to date. However, sources can be updated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that is missing or doesn't belong. There are some references that could use a source.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? No, It does not. Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, this article doesn't focus on historically underepresented populations or topics. The article tallks about the human population as a whole. There is a certain age group that is  effected more by social media.

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? Yes, the articles gives negative and positive effects on social media and it's effects on suicide.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there aren't any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. Just the general facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There seems to be more information on negative effects than positive.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? yes.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, It doesn't. It just gives general information and evidence about the effects that social media has on suicide.

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? Most of the facts are backed up by a secondary source, however, there are some things that could use some evidence.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough, many of the sources are from primary sources.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current for the most part, however, some of them could be updated.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. There are news articles, statistical data, etc. Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, it does.
 * 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.) Yes, there are better resources that could be used to update some of the resources. Most of them or current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they do 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? Yes, the article is easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are some grammatical and spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, the key points that were hit in the lead were talked about in the body paragraphs. Evidence and resources were included.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the articles contains one image.
 * Are images well-captioned? The image is well captioned and explains that there are multiple types of social media.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, it does.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, it is laid out in the top right corner of the beginnning of the article.

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? There are conversations that the article could've been formatted in a better way. also, that more research could have taken place.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes, the article is rated and has been of interested in WikiProjects such as, computing, death/ suicide, internet culture, and more.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It goes more in depth on Wikipedia because there is evidence to support claims and evidence to back up the facts.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Its a start- class. It is an preliminary article with much room for improvement.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article provides evidence for facts and shows both the negative and postive impacts that social media has on suicide.
 * How can the article be improved? The article is said to have incorrect citations and information that appears to either be copy-pasted, inaccurate, or outdated. Therefore, thats where it needs improvement.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is well developed. It just need a little more improvment.