User:Charosiers/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Medium theory - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this topic because it is one of the theories that will be learned next week for my course. Furthermore, it seems to be a very interesting and rich topic. This topic matters because it is an important branch of media studies, and it was developed in part by Harold Innis, who is a predominant figure in the Canadian political academia. My primary impression of the topic was that it looked extensive, and that, like several theories of media, it could be interpreted in various ways and could be applied to a large range of communication topics. Consequently, I believe from a quick overview of the subject that it might be difficult to summarize in a concise way and to show the full extent of what it does in a single Wikipedia article.

Evaluate the article
The lead section could be more concise and be reformulated into a single paragraph, but cannot be qualified as overly detailed. It does not describe the major sections. Nevertheless, it clearly describes the topic, includes only info present in the rest of the article. Here are my suggestions:


 * Include a one sentence overview of the historical background after your first few sentences, including your section regarding Joshua Meyrowitz.
 * Add a sentence or two on technological determinism, which is important to the last section of your text.

The content is up-to-date and relevant to the topic.

The tone is not perfectly neutral, but o claim seem biased, and viewpoints presents eem equitably represented. However, only the most popular points of view are represented. The articles does not attempt to persuade. Here is an example of how this could be improved.


 * "Medium theory has always been criticized for its technological determinism." (Taken from Medium theory).
 * By simply removing the "always", you take your sentence from biased to neutral while increasing the accuracy of the article, since words such as "always" and "best" are strong words that are best avoided in such texts.

The sources and references are too few, and there are not enough academic sources. Although most seem current, some links are inaccessible. The article relies a bit too much on the same source.


 * I would suggest going through JSTOR, Google Scholar, your university institution (if applicable), or other academic databases to find a greater variety of sources and arguments.
 * Go through each link one by one to see if they work.

The organization is clear, but with a wider range of points of view, new categories could be added. The language is clear and relatively concise. I do not see spelling or grammatical errors.

The images are not present and could benefit the claims.


 * You could add an image of the main developers of the theory, or of the book that you referred to.

The Talk is empty and would benefit from the contribution of other Wikipedians. The article has yet to be rated, but it is part of the WikiProject Sociology.


 * Add your next modification plans to the Talk section.

My overall impression is that it lacks in several places, and that its quality is hindered by what seems a slightly rushed redaction. The strengths of the article lie in the fact that the main content is there. The author provides a strong base for other Wikipedians to improve the article. The article is slightly incomplete. Aside from the "History" part, all sections could benefit from added content. The article could be improved on any of the points mentioned above.

Done in the context of "Evaluate an Article" assignment. --Charosiers (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)