User:Brebre143/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: Mass communication
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because digital writing is a big part of mass communication.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it gives the definition of what mass communications is as an academic field of study.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything is included and more.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise. It gives an overview of what to expect from the rest of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, it was even edited just recently.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is a banner stating that the article contains some inaccurate claims
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, it just gives general information and facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The Public Relations section of the article doesn't contain as much information as the rest of the subsections.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some facts are backed up with sources, but some subsections do not have any reliable secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? The most recent source I saw was from 2014, the others are from some years back.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes. Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
 * Check a few links. Do they work? One of the links I checked did not work; others need for you to have a subscription to the website that the source is from.

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? Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * 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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? People are putting their comments about the article on the talk page, but there hasn't been any responses in awhile.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is part WikiProject Technology and Media.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In our class, we talk more in detail about digital writing and the aspects of it. This article doesn't speak much about digital writing.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It's a decent article.
 * What are the article's strengths? It provides a good amount of information so that the reader can understand what mass communication is and the media that fits within it.
 * How can the article be improved? It needs more reliable sources and the sources that are there need to be double checked since some do not work.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is well-developed, but it needs some cleaning up.

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: