User:Catfiorindi/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: Mean world syndrome
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: We covered this topic in class this week, I found interesting and relevant to media today.

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? - yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - it's somewhat overly detailed

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? - yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? - yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - no

==== Content evaluation - this article includes content that is up to date and relevant to the topic, and covers the content well. it does not address any historically underrepresented population or topics and could go in to more detail about the link between cultivation theory and the depictions and perceptions of underrepresented populations in media ====

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? somewhat, though it seems to take for a fact that media has the power to directly effect viewers
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? yes, for example "This is because media (namely television) consumed by viewers has the power to directly influence and inform their attitudes, beliefs and opinions about the world"
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoint that media effects theory is without problems
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another? no

==== Tone and balance evaluation - From this reading is seems that the author of the article is biased towards media effects theory and cultivation theory. However, they do not try to persuade the reader outright. ====

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - somewhat, there is a repetition of authors but the basic literature is there
 * Are the sources current? some are from the last 5 years but many are dated back to the early 2000s and earlier
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - no
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - yes

==== Sources and references evaluation - The sources and reference section is somewhat complete and the links work. Most of the articles and papers are not from the last 5 years, however and the sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors. ====

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? - there are some grammatical errors
 * 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? - much of prior feedback on this article is related to it being not well sourced and appearing to be biased.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? - it is part of the WikiProject Psychology and has been given a start class on quality scale and a mid importance on importance scale.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? - On the talk page it there is discussion about whether or Mean World Syndrome is a valid science or junk science. In class we have covered this topic as a valid science while also thinking about it critically, for example through the reading that covers things that are wrong with media effects theory.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The articles overall status is that it's a good start but not complete.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article covers the basic information about Mean World Syndrome.
 * How can the article be improved?It could go into more detail and provide real world examples that flesh out the concept along with sources from a more diverse pool of researchers.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is 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: