User:BrookeMcNeel/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Comments section

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I'm always curious about what people say in comment sections. Sometimes, those comments are more interesting than the original post. Comment sections have come up in mine and another group's article selections for the journal presentations we are concurrently working on, so they are relevant conversation platforms. I also think that in a society heavily involved in social media where these comment sections mainly exist, it is important to learn more about. They are places where people can talk about stuff in real-time and change how others view things. People can either praise or criticize someone, start discussions, or get more people to notice a post by sharing profiles. It's a cool way to communicate, and I want to learn more about it. Also, I noticed the Wikipedia article doesn't talk much about comment sections on TikTok and Instagram or important topics like "canceling" and "racism." So, I want to add sources that cover those things, because they're a big part of what makes comment sections interesting to me.

Evaluate the article
Lead

1. Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead includes an introductory sentence does concisely and clearly describe the article's topic. However, I think it the first sentence should include "social media." For context, the first sentence is " The comments section is a feature on most online blogs, news websites, and other websites." Considering the relevance of comments sections on social media, I think this is a relevant addition.

2. Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major selections? Yes, the lead includes a brief description of the article's major selections. However, I think the article could do a better job at introducing the topics discussed in the article. Perhaps they could add something like "There are different types of comments sections. This feature allows for discussion between readers which can have a positive and negative impact." I don't know, just something that introduces the topics a bit more.

3. Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead does not include information that is not present in the article. Arguably, I feel they should include more information in the lead.

4. Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is certainly concise. I would say the lead defines the topic well but doesn't give a very great overview.

Content

1. Is the article’s content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article’s content is relevant to the topic. However, I think they could include more information on other sites with comments sections.

2. Is the content up to date? Yes, statistics from July 2023 are included in the article.

3. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, I do think there is content missing, but no, I do not think there is content that does not belong. I think they should add more information on comments sections in heavily used social media apps such as TikTok and Instagram. As mentioned earlier, I would also like to add more information regarding cancelling and topics related to racism.

4. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, I wouldn’t say this article deals with equity gaps. They briefly touch on misogyny, sexism, and feminism, but I feel like they could add more.

Tone and Balance

1. Is the article neutral? Yes, the article is neutral. They are clearly aiming to simply inform their audience.

2. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are not any claims that are heavily biased toward a particular position. It remains neutral throughout the article.

3. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, I would say there are viewpoints that are heavily biased toward a particular position. It heavily informs us on the negatives of comments sections but doesn’t touch much on the positive aspects of it. I would love to find more information about this.

4. Are there minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No, I would say there are not many minority viewpoints. I’m not sure if that is a good or bad thing. Perhaps I could do more research on this. For the most part, they seem to include what sounds like a general consensus in the behavior section.

5. Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away form another? No, this article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position. It is a very neutral article that simply presents information. It just presents an imbalanced amount of information. That may be due to lack of resources on that topic, though.

Sources and References

1. Are all the facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable source. There is a citation after each statistic provided.

2. Are the sources thorough? Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources are thorough. Upon a quick search, there is not an overwhelming amount of information available on this topic. A talk show called “The Comments Section” fills most of the search results. However, at the very bottom, there is an article by NYT that helps readers navigate their comments section.

3. Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are current. The oldest source is from 2013. However, one source is missing a URL, so I don’t know how reliable that one is.

4. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? DO they include historically marginalized individuals were possible? Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. Not a single one of the 21 sources provided are written by the same author.

5. Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? Yes, the sources are available. Most of the sources are from popular and respected journals. Only a few are from random websites, but I feel like the information discussed in those would not be a big enough topic to be in a big journal, so I understand.

6. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links worked. I clicked on 5 and they all took me to the correct place. As mentioned, there is only one source lacking a URL. I am going to try and find this URL and add it.

Organization and Writing Quality

1. Is the article well-written? Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article is well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read. I think they could do a better job at transitioning from topic to topic. Since the article is so new, it seems like blurts of information instead of a nice flowing article that has connected thoughts. This might be the consequence of a preliminary article though.

2. Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, there are no grammatical or spelling errors. I copied and pasted the article into Word to see if any underlines would pop up, but none did.

3. Is the article well-organized? Is it broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes and no. I think the article is well-organized for its current state. As I mentioned earler, it feels sort of like blurts of information, but again, I think that is fair for preliminary articles. I intend on adding more positive aspects of comment sections, and hopefully that will fill in some of those gaps that feel like leaps from topic to topic. I also think more basic information could be added about comment sections. The article is mainly just history, types, and behavior.

Images and Media

1. Does the article include images that enhance the understanding of the topic? No, the article does not include any images. I will add some! Perhaps I will add an image of what these comment sections look like and how they are formatted.

2. Are the images well captioned? Not relevant. When I add an image, I will caption it something along the lines of “Instagram comments section.”

3. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations? Not relevant. However, that is a good thing to remember. I will have to brush up on how to add an image while complying with the copyright regulations.

4. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not relevant. I will put the image in a place that makes sense. I will put it next to the corresponding topic.

Talk Page Discussion

1. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to present this topic? There doesn’t appear to be any conversations on the talk page. Maybe I could start some conversation or leave tips on things to add that I can’t add.

2. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated “mid-importance” and “start-class” across all measurements. That means it provides some meaningful content, but it needs lots of improvement.

3. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we’ve talked about it in class? I would say the way Wikipedia discusses this topic is very similar to the way we’ve discussed it in class. In class, we have talked about comments section as a platform for real-time communication and how communication looks there. The only difference is that this article provides statistics, and we have never talked that in-depth.

Overall Impressions

1. What is the article’s overall status? The article’s overall status is S class with a completeness score of 60. To me, that means it is new and needs lots more information to be a full encompassing article. This article was created in 2017 and has since been edited 121 times with the most recent edit being April 10th of this year. It also receives an average of 53 views per day.

2. What are the article’s strengths? The article’s strengths are that its current information is well written. There are no errors and its written very clearly.

3. How can the article be improved? The article can be improved simply by the addition of lots more information. It currently feels very spotty, but adding more information would solve that. I also think the addition of images would be positive.

4. How would you assess the article’s completeness? Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would rate the article’s completeness as underdeveloped. In its current state, it is well developed, but it is certainly not at its full potential. I think we can try and get it there though. I will also leave comments in the talk page for the things I wasn't able to add, but think would be a positive addition.