User:ColinAndersonUofO/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Public relations

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it should serve as an overview to the discipline in which I major. It's important because the definition of what public relations is can be nebulous at times, and the article should simple and straightforwardly explain the topic. My preliminary impression of it was overall positive, but I was surprised at how few pictures (one) were used in the article.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead covering what public relations is is strong, but it includes many granular details that would perhaps be best saved for specific sections in the article.

The content is of varying quality: for example, it features a very strong section on ethics, which is core to public relations, but it also features a 'career prospects' section, which is of particularly low content quality. The only countries featured are Canada, the United States, and the UK, and the UK's information starts with an average salary claim for 'public relations directors' from Cosmopolitan. The article fails to address what a 'public relations director' is or does, and overall the 'career prospects' section seems bare and inconsistent.

Public relations tactics is limited in its scope, and fails to include some common tactics like guerrilla PR. It also fails to address what I consider a common phrase related to public relations, being a 'public relations stunt'. \

An English speaking, Western society viewpoint is offered throughout the article, failing to provide for the rest of the world.

The citations are overall quite poor, including reference to 'PRNewswire's' self-published press release on public relations salaries, which is a conflict of interest because they operate in the field. Other citations include some academic references, but also low-quality, blog style articles.

The Talk page does not seem to include conversations on the overall quality of the article or expanding the views included, and therefore I think misses the mark in priorities.

The article has a C-rating and level 4 importance, which means it is of some importance but relatively low quality.

After reviewing the article more thoroughly, I consider it to be of an especially poor quality, and in serious need of some quality content.