User:Chambara5/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title
 * Angry Joe


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article's content are relevant to the topic, however, there is limited information about the actual background that is involved in the making of the persona of "Angry Joe". Through the category I had found out that they were a film critic, however, the begging of the article only presents two short sentences about the relevance of the person and their reliability. It is written neutrally and presents facts about his youtube channel being launched, on what day, and the reviews that he had from people regarding his channel. It mentions his affiliations and work he has done in the past as public knowledge. Some of the sources mentioned are magazines which made me question their relevance and strength of argument to the article. There is also a twitter link cited as a source which lacks a little bit of reliable-ness in terms of trust worthy news added to the article.


 * Sources
 * Angry Joe

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Exclaim!


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is neutral and adds factual information that adds relevant context to the history of "Exclaim!" as an entertainment publisher. The content of the article is relevant to the topic and actually enhances the knowledge of the reader, this article could be used to explain to someone who has never heard of "Exclaim!", what it is. The article is very statistic based as we see in the first paragraph it mentions direct numbers about the number of prints they have a year, copies they produce, and their average number of monthly readers. The citations are reliable as they are sources like the companies distribution numbers, other articles writing about the success "Exclaim!" has had. However, there is some bias as some of the sources are from their own website and publishing, this does not allow for a full overview of what "Exclaim!" is, in that capacity. The article does not effectively tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.


 * Sources
 * Exclaim!

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Famous for being famous


 * Article Evaluation
 * Famous for being famous is a though-out article that provides effective context, history, and subcategories of its' own about what it is to be "famous for being famous". The article is written neutrally and breaks down the history of the term "famous" and traces it back to "celebrity". It provides the reader with information that they did not know before having read the article. They explain more so the history of the term and the depth of how it is used today and give examples like Paris Hilton in order to help the reader further understand the terms presented. Many of the claims have citations especially when they are mentioning someone else's involvement in order to connect the relationship between them and the term. By adhering to these standards, the article does provide coverage of historically underrepresented people and giving them credit where it is due (who coined the term, how often the word was occurring and to who etc.) The "see also" section on the article provided deeper understanding and familiarity to terms or people we already know today like "Keeping up with the Kardashians". The sources are not deeply reliable as they are articles like the Washington Post or Daily Times News.


 * Sources
 * Famous for being famous

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Bleep Sensor


 * Article Evaluation
 * Bleep Sensor is the most developed article of all the articles mentioned so far. It understands and translates to the reader what is the bleep sensor, in what context is it used, and HOW it is used in each context. The provide subsections of how the sensor is used in film, humor and on television. The article is written neutrally and does not present a side to be taken. It does have citations on the majority of the claims that are made which gains the readers trust and understand of the levels of the article. The content is extremely relevant to the topic and furthers it by making it interesting for the reader and giving them examples of each of the ways the sensor could be used. It also explores regulation and specifically in the United Kingdom and United States, which allows the reader to form their own opinion about sensorship without being given one by the article itself. It is factual and does not take a stand on the pros and cons of the bleep sensor. By giving examples to the reader, the article proves its solidity and instills trust in what is being read.


 * Sources
 * Bleep censor

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Satellite Radio


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is historic and provides MANY references that make it more reliable. It makes comparisons between satellite radio and other forms, which may seem like it is not entirely neutral, maybe insinuating that satellite is better than another. It also does give more information about The United States's relation to satellite radio and seems to lack that depth when describes countries like Japan or Canada. This may also seem as un-neutral and may hold the article at a disadvantage. However, as mentioned, the article has many references and almost every other sentence or claim has a citation that it refers to to ensure effectiveness and truth in the article. The content on its' own is very relevant and understands the meaning of satellite radio, how it is used, and what it provides to countries all over the world. I believe that this article's sources and sincere attention to information being accurate is a large benefit for a reader like me. From my understand, the article does not mention Wikipedia's equity gaps when it could mention a group of disadvantaged countries that cannot get satellite radio due to their conditions, for example. It could include the involvement of politics in this form of broadcasting in order to add context. Overall, it is informational and effective.


 * Sources
 * Satellite radio