User:BurkeK98/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: Communication Studies


 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I choose this article to evaluate because, while I'm not exactly sure what I want to major in, I do know that I am interested in communication studies.

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, lead lead section gives the impression that there should be more to the article and barely covers what's in the contents.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * From what I can tell on the 'edit history' page and the content that's there, yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is content missing. The content missing is mostly the 'international' aspect mentioned in the lead, topics in the 'scope and topics' section, and some citations.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
 * Not so much viewpoint, but information. There's over representation of the 'history' portion as opposed to the 'Scope and Topics' portion
 * 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?
 * No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * What is there, yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are a few punctuation errors here and there, but nothing major.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, but it could be better.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are conversations about adding new sections and revising the current ones.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * it's rated as a start-class article and it's part of 5 wikiprojects: media, sociology, linguistics, philosophy, and science.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It goes more in depth into the history.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Level-5 vital article
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The information that's there is concise and meaningful.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Adding more to the current sections and adding the citations needed where indicated
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped

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: