User:Benji2498/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: Alternative media
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 1) Yes, it acts as a definition of the topic.
 * 2) It doesn't say anything relating to the "Aesthetics" section
 * 3) No
 * 4) Concise, it touches on all the major sections (save for aesthetics) and does so without spending too much time on any one of them.


 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 1) Yes, all the sections include difference facets and forms of alternative media
 * 2) Yes, the references are from a range of years, but many are quite new
 * 3) There could be sections about social response or community
 * 4) Yes, the section "Race and indigenous media" shows how minority groups have used alternative media to their advantage and to tell their story.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions


 * 1) yes, the information provided is from academic and unbiased sources, and no opinions or critiques are shared
 * 2) No
 * 3) Not to me, the section on race and indigenous media is a bit lacking, but certainly included
 * No, it presents information as fact


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 1) Yes, references are made often within the article. The references used are from other internet sources on alternative media, and this wiki article nicely ties them together.
 * 2) Yes, they come from a wide array of internet secondary sources
 * 3) Yes
 * 4) Relatively yes
 * 5) I checked 5, 1 did not work


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 1) Yes, the sections are split up nicely to each section is very focused. I am able to read it as easily as another other good wiki article
 * 2) Not from what I saw
 * 3) Yes


 * 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

 * Guiding questions


 * 1) there are a few, but on in the major section "forms of media"
 * 2) Somewhat, they are a bit brief
 * 3) Yes, They have creative commons licenses
 * 4) Not really, they're very small and just on the right side
 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 1) Some say that some of the sections are sloppy or do not fit within this article, one comment says that this article frames alt media as being very academic when in reality it is grassroots
 * 2) This article is C-class rated, it is part of wikiprojects journalism, media, and alternative views
 * 3) There is one section of the talk page titled "Ehem..." that seems like it was written by a crazy person. Of course, I am very new to the community of editors within wikipedia, but to me this section was shocking and confusing.
 * 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

 * Guiding questions


 * 1) Since it is C-class, there are sections that need to be added or adjusted, but to a casual reader like me it is quite informative
 * 2) Well structured, features references and sections from underrepresented groups/viewpoints
 * 3) more lengthy sections, especially in sections within the forms of media major section
 * 4) Its well developed, could use some edits based on what is said in the talk page
 * 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?

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: