User:Chemofwaterstudent28/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: I selected the article covering "Mass communication" because I have previously taken a class on the subject at Villanova University. Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the author articles a clear definition of mass communication. Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the author includes the different types of mass communication such as, "journalism and advertising" then further describes them in the proceeding sections. Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The article is relatively concise. Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes Is the content up-to-date? Yes, but in the current study of mass communication, there is an emphasis on social media, and there is only a paragraph or so on social media in the article. 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? Tone and Balance There is no mention of historically underrepresented populations in this article.

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, this article is not about a controversial topic. Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

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? Yes Are the sources current? There is a good variety of sources, and there are sources as current as 2019 featured in the article. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Most of the sources are from different authors, but they do not include any marginalized individuals. Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) There are a lot of good sources available on mass communication (journal articles, studies, and textbooks), so I think the editors could integrate more sources into the article. When I opened some of the sources, they do not look like academic resources; therefore, some of the sources may need to be audited and revised. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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? No Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is broken down into the sub-genres of mass communication (journalism/advertising/PR). Images and Media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images. Are images well-captioned? There are no images. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are no images. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There are no images. Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are many concerns about the "vagueness" of the article and the sources used. Many users are recommending different sources to use in the article. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? According to wikipedia's "quality scale," this article has been rated as "Start-class." Many users have suggested major improvements to this article and insight from experts in Mass Communication. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The users on the talk page's concerns are similar to conversations I have had in my mass communication class. Since this topic is so broad, it is difficult to write such a concise article and cover all the major components/sectors of the topic. Overall impressions What is the article's overall status? The article's overall status is in-progress. There are some good sources and the organization is clear, but it needs some more research and attention from experts in the field. What are the article's strengths? The biggest strength of the article is its organization. How can the article be improved? The article needs more reputable sources and more details within the sub-headings. How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is not complete and is underdeveloped. Chemofwaterstudent28 (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC) chemodfwaterstudent28