User:Connor.marceron/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Digital storytelling
 * Briefly Describe why you chose this article: I chose this article because it directly deals with the course that I am taking; Digitial Storytelling. Learning more about the broad topic of communications, will help hone my understanding of the smaller subject; Digital Storytelling

Lead

 * Guiding questions

How do teachers use Digital Storytelling in curriculum to convey information to students.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: Yes, it is to the point and sets the stage for the information expected from the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise and to the point

Lead evaluation
The Lead introduces the topic sufficiently and clearly describes the topic and information expected within the page. With concise information, the topic is supported by credited information.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, very much so.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes information has been sourced as recent as 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There does not seem to be any information that doesn't belong. All information pertains to the subject.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article uses credited information to speak towards issues like Health Services, Education and Therapy. It also credits use in gender-based violence prevention programs.

==== Content evaluation- The information that the article cites, is relevant to the topic in each section. The information used to support these details seems to be up to date. From my understanding there is no missing information to support the details used. There also seems to be no use of needless information regarding the backing up of any topics. The information expressed in the article supports Wikipedia's equity gaps through means of programs that use the information from this article to support programs that focus benefits for women, and minorities. It is also used in the recovery of individuals who have experienced abuse or therapy needs. ====

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?- The article remains pretty neutral throughout. Uses information to show how Digital Storytelling is used, and the positive's that come from the topic.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are many claims of how Digital Storytelling is used in positive manors to positively effect the lives of those that are taught more about it. Example "Uses in public health, healthcare, social services, and international development", and "therapy" Sections.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All of the information cited seems to have come from vetted sources. Some sources used were also second hand.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Most sources used accurately back up the points made within the Article
 * Are the sources current? Yes, as recent as 2019.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? From my understanding, there was a large amount of sources used, from a large spectrum of individuals/institutions. After reviewing the sources, It is unclear that the article took initiative to make sure to include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Most work, few do not.

Sources and references evaluation
It is my understanding that the sources used were thoroughly vetted and contain a wide range of individuals/institutions. Almost all of the links used work, unless the link is to an organization that no longer exists. The information cited for this article, reflects the topic well, and uses a large variety of sources, bringing more validity to this article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? Not from what I reviewed.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article seems to be laid out in a way that make it easy to read and easy to follow, while taking in the information in an easy read.

Organization evaluation
The orgianization of the article was well structured. The information started as a more generalized set of information, becoming more concise to each topic as the article progressed. There seemed to be no grammatical or spelling errors, as well as being well written and easy to read.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Only one, and it seemed to be a picture that was not needed to support any information within the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? The singular Photo was well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not really. Only one photo was used, and it seemed a better image could have been used.

Images and media evaluation
Because the article only uses one image, It is my understanding that the article is lacking regarding Images and Media. However, the singular image was well captioned and supported by information tied with it.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? There are pages tied to the article that will take you to similiar topics, however It is not a part of any WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The article allows for a wider undersdtanding of how the Topic is used in Educational Aspects. It also allows for a view that isn't centric to only education. Learning about how the topic can be applied to things like therapy, is something that I have yet to hear about during the course.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The article allows for a wider undersdtanding of how the Topic is used in Educational Aspects. It also allows for a view that isn't centric to only education. Learning about how the topic can be applied to things like therapy, is something that I have yet to hear about during the course.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article seems to be complete regarding the topics that is uses.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article is very factual and is supported by a vast amount of information and sources.
 * How can the article be improved? It could go into further detail in most topics, seems to be very generalized during key topics.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article seems pretty well developed and seems to be one that has sufficient information pertaining to the topic. I don't find myself needed to use any other pages to further understand the information used.

Overall evaluation
The article seems to be sufficient in delivering the information needed. It seems to be a complete article, that does a great job in using sources to deliver information. While very generalized at points, I think more media and visual information could be used to keep readers attention throughout the article.

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: