User:CoffeeGCMA/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Mass communication
 * Mass communication is so prominent today and in my research lately, that I would like to further its description and explanation. More importantly, I would like to add a few more theories that could be useful in explaining social trends in regards to the spread of what is believed to be authentic.

Lead
The Lead has a good description of what is Mass communication by describing its meaning overall and in comparison to Mass media. It also gives good examples on how Mass communication can be achieved. However, it could be more condensed as its description of the role of Mass media in Mass communication is redundant. The different sections that will be furthered in the article are clearly stated and they give a thorough understanding of this concept. Every link that leads to each section of the article works and everything mentioned in the table of contents is mentioned in the article.

Content


Most content seems to be quite up to date, although some information are from 2009 and in the past ten years there have been significant changes in our communication systems, especially do to an increase in globalization. I believe this last point should be mentioned in the description in Mass communication, as this concept has become more relevant today due to this mass exchange of information, people, and goods on international scale. A paragraph on professional organizations is also included, however, I do not believe it is necessary as it is a very small paragraph and it does not give much information on these organizations.

Tone and Balance


The tone remains neutral throughout the article and there is no claims that tend to be biased, although I would recommend to also mention the negative results of using e-books for example. Libraries' importance is decreasing and accessibility to books and educational material may become more difficult for those who remain in a lower social economic status.

Sources and References


All facts are backed up with reliable sources and the links work nicely. However for one of the references, the year is missing.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization


The article is well written and somewhat concise, especially in the theory section. The organization, though, could be improved especially in the theory section where there should be a more in depth understanding and explanation of how such theories can help understand the concept of Mass communication. Overall, it is easy to read and the concepts mentioned are quite clearly explained, especially thanks to the appropriate links given.

Images and Media


There are no pictures nor videos and I believe it could have been interesting to have a few pictures of the authors of each theory mentioned and a few videos depicting some examples of how ethics work in interactive media.

Checking the talk page


Some of the comments mentioned in the Talk page criticize the accessibility to some of the sources mentioned in the article and about the validity of some of the arguments made due to being too vague. This article is part of the a WikiPoject and is rated as being a good draft and I do agree with this statement because, as I was going through the article, I noticed that there many sections but not all of them are as thorough as they should. I would say that if you are unable to find good amount of information related to your topic, then maybe omit it from the page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

This article covers a lot of ground, as it tried to be as thorough as possible. However, certain sections could be omitted to leave space to a more in depth explanation of of more important aspects of Mass communication, such as the paragraph on the theoretical background.

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: