User:CarsonJones06/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Science communication - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because I wanted to pick a topic related to communication to get an idea for my final project. I have majoring in a science related field so I thought it would be applicable to look through the Wikipedia article that incorporates science and communication. My first impressions were that it seemed pretty detailed regarding the amount and type of information that it includes.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The lead section has a good introductory sentence that describes the overall topic of the article and if the reader wanted a quick overview of the whole article, reading the lead section would give them a pretty good sense of the overall article. The lead section does not however include a description of the major sections, this would be beneficial to include so that if someone does not want or need to read the entire article, they can just see the sectional breakdown and go to the section they are interested in. It does not seem like there is any information in the lead section that is not included in the rest of the article. The lead section does seem overly detailed in some instances. For example, the lead section describes the difference of science in-reach and outreach. It then goes into specific examples of each one which could be more applicable in the later sections.

Content: The overall content of the article is relevant to the topic and goes through a lot of the aspects that are in the topic of science communication. Looking at the sources and the information pulled for the contents most of the information seems up to date. There is a lot of content in this page and there does not seem to be missing any overall content that should be added. The content includes the different methods of science communication, and the role is plays in popular culture and society. This article deals with equity gaps in Wikipedia by allowing the article to be viewed in eight different languages. This article also has a section that is focused on inclusive communication and cultural differences which is very important with regards to a topic that might be focused on Western science and knowledge. Including this section aims at breaking down that equity gap and acknowledges the cultural differences that might arise in a topic of science communication.

Tone and Balance: The overall tone of the article is neutral. Other than a couple sentences saying "superstitious beliefs" regarding religious or spiritual beliefs sounds biased towards the scientific field. There are no big claims that are biased towards one position or another. All the claims are cited by sources used throughout the article. While the views of western science communication are very prevalent in the article there is a whole section that acknowledges cultural differences of the topic. More expansion on different cultures ideas of science communication should be added. Again, while minority or fringe points are mentioned that western science is linked to colonialism and imperialism and that communication is culturally based, more examples or differing ideas regarding science communication would make this article more inclusive. The article does not try to persuade the reader into believing one side or another, rather it just puts the information forward of the overall topic.

Sources and References: All claims and facts mentioned in the article are cited. Most of the sources are current with a few that come from the 1980's and 90'2 which might need to be updated with more current sources. The authors do seem to be written by a different variety of authors. The sources are thorough and are claims and facts are backed up by secondary and primary literature. Marginalized individuals are included, while more of these could never be detrimental to the article. The majority of the sources are peer-reviewed articles or books, there are some websites that could be substituted by more peer-reviewed articles. The links work.

Organization and writing quality: The article is written fairly well. It is concise and clear and easy to read for the general reader. There are a couple grammatical errors that need revision but they are minor. The organization of the article is smooth and follows a structured pattern of information. Sections do reflect the major topics of the article and allow the reader to fully understand the topic.

Images and Media: The few images and videos that are embedded in the article do not enhance the understanding of the topic. Some pictures are just science related images rather than adhering to the topic of science communication. More pictures related to the overall topic are needed. Some are old photos that reflect western science and not the minority groups or their influence of science communication. The images are captioned to give the reader an idea of its significance. The images and video are cited for adhering to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The few images that there are visually appealing in that they coincide with the content being discussed. More images should be added, however, especially to the section of science in popular culture and the media.

Talk page discussion: There are only a few discussions happening in the talk section of the article. One of the main conversations is including science ambassadors into the article, while other comments are focused on adding popular communicators that represent the idea of science communication. Some discussions are focused on philosphical andpolitical corrections that should be done or excluded from the article in that it is not related to the topic of science communication. The article is rated as a Start-Class and having mid-importance, the project meaning it needs a lot more work to be done to be rated any higher. It is part of the WikiProject Technology which is interesting.

Overall Impressions: This article is a great start to the topic of science communication but needs a lot more work to be considered finished or to be ranked higher on Wikipedia. The amount of information and accessibility to read the topic is its strength, along the with credible sources it pulls from are a strength for this article. Some sources might need to be updated with more current sources related to the topic and more peer-reviewed sources. The main section that needs more information is the cultural information section which mentions that science communication is mainly a western idea and that other cultures have different ideas about the topic. More discussion and examples should be included to get a larger grasp and idea for the topic. Some basic grammar edits need to be made as well. The article itself is defiantly underdeveloped in that the edits and additions mentioned before would enhance this article to receiving higher rating on Wikipedia. As it is only rated as the Start-Class. But this is a good start as it has a lot of information already there, it just needs to be expanded to include more views from cultures and updated sources.