User:Aschmidbauer/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Anthropology of media
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. It's related to my field of study and something that I feel relates to this class at the same time.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but almost a little too short when it comes to talking about the rest of the article.

Lead evaluation
It's a little too short I'd think, and took me a few times reading over it to really understand what it was trying to say.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Somewhat? Most of the source are from the 90s and early 2000's, there are a few newer. With the topic of mass media however, I'd have thought that the sources would be a little newer.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is barely any information on newer types of media, which I feel is very prevalent when it comes to modern anthropology of media. It's a pretty short article though, so there's nothing 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? No

Content evaluation
There 's a large lack of having anything related to more modern forms of mass media, and barely talks about types of newer forms of mass media other than vaguely talking about the internet.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it doesn't really make any claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Again I'd say that there should be more on newer mass media, however the information given is very short.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
It's a little too short in general to really judge whether or not there's a specific bias, as it's mostly just summarizing rather than drawing its own conclusions.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? Some of them are, but for the most part they are older articles, with the newest one cited being from 2013.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, out of the few sources, there seems to be a few that talk about other parts of the world and marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
As mentioned before, the sources are somewhat outdated and very few, the header of the article even mentions needing more sources. This is an issue as anthropology of media is rapidly changing due to new forms of mass media.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is broken down into parts, however the actual text in each section is seemingly not very relevant to the topic at hand, and the sections are pretty vague.

Organization evaluation
Each part of the article is pretty vague in what each section is supposed to be talking about, and while contains concise information, is a little confusing in trying to parse.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images in this article
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
There are no images in this article, which could be justified by how short the article is.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The last conversation on the talk page that is dated is from 2006, and it proposes an overhaul of the article. It brings up a bibliography of further reading, which is on the page. The last edit was made in 2015.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is part of WikiProject Anthropology, and is rated as Start-class on the quality scale, and is not yet rated on the importance scale.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In general it's very much outdated, and does not really draw from sources, or enough sources for that matter.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page hasn't been updated in quite a long time, the last signed post being from 14 years ago.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It's rather incomplete, especially in terms of being up-to-date with the topic at hand when coming to the rapidly evolving mass medias in terms of anthropology.
 * What are the article's strengths? It is pretty concise, and links to a lot of other articles that could be used for further readings.
 * How can the article be improved? It could be improved with more up-to-date sources, and more sources in general, as several sections do not have citations at all.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say it is underdeveloped, as it has some solid curation of similar topics, however is very much out of date especially when it comes to the rapidly changing field of anthropology.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is mainly not very developed in terms of not having a very large scope of sources, even going to not cite many sources and many very old sources. With the modernity of this topic, there should be more up-to-date sources as well as better organized topics and more relevant text in each section in relation to the topics.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: