User:ConorRollins/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Political communication

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I have chosen this article due to its interesting topic and appeal. This is because political communication is one of the most integral parts of communication and is important to learn how people communicate with each other. The importance of political communication is that it is a subfield of communication that looks to explain how important communication and information can be about politics, governments, policies, and more. My initial impressions of the article were that it provided insight on a topic that is always relevant, this is as communication is the most important part of politics, and understanding this can be the difference in whether policy gets implemented or not.

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

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.)

Lead Section

The lead section opens with a strong introductory sentence whereby it describes what political communication is and what topics and fields it covers. This includes explaining different means such as influencing politics or news media. The lead section does not mention all of the article's major section but rather list relevant topics to political communication. The lead section does not include information that is not present in the article and is presented in a correctly detailed and concise manner.

Content

The content that is presented in the article on political communication seems to be correct and relevant to the topic at hand. All indications of information and dates from the article show that it contains content and data that is correct and precise. There are areas of content that are missing, this is as when discussing examples of strategic political communication, the article misses to reference communication in all regions of the world. The article does not mention content that necessarily pertains to Wikipedia's equity gap but does address correct historical and correct information on underrepresented populations and topics.

Tone and Balance

The article does not seem to display any levels of bias towards any viewpoint or another. This means that it maintains a neutral standpoint and does not appear to have any claims or information that is heavily biased toward a particular position. As stated beforehand, there is a bias toward conveying the importance of political communication within the Western World with a disregard for how it operates in other regions of the world. Fringe viewpoints are shown such as political communication from the Middle Eastern perspective, but more could have been covered. I do not believe that the article tries to persuade readers toward one position or another.

Sources and References

When there are facts or information presented in the article, there is always the correct corresponding hyperlink or linked information to support the point. From what has been shown in the article, the sources have enough information and availability on the topics whether that be for the different fields and areas of study or strategic political communication. The sources from the article do not show that most of them are current, there are very few sources from the last 5 years with most coming from before that time. Overall, the sources are from a diverse array of authors and are usually correctly cited ad peer-reviewed, these articles and information are working and accessible.

Organization and writing quality

The article is easy to read and concise, however, the layout could have been improved and formatted to a better extent. From my viewpoint, I did not see that the article contained any visible errors in spelling or grammar. As stated, the format could have been improved and organized better, at points it felt too cluttered and hard to process the information.

Images and Media

The image that is used is a photo of George W. Bush giving a speech, this is relevant to the topic and it is captioned correctly to show what is happening in the image. The image seems to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulation and does not display any faults. The image is laid out decently and appealingly for the topic at hand.

Talk page discussion

The talk page does not display high levels of activity and the discussions that seem to be taking place include questions and improvements on the article. There doesn't seem to be any level of extensive planning behind the scenes. The article is rated as start-class and of high importance, additionally, it is a part of multiple WikiProjects such as for Politics, Media, and Telecommunications. Wikipedia does not discuss this much different from what we have said in class but rather just in more detail.

Overall impressions

Overall, the article displayed some great information and is considered a strong verifiable source based on the overall status of the article and information. The strengths were that it included a large amount of correct and important information that included supporting sources and information. The article could be improved by looking at political communication in more regions across the world to gauge a better viewpoint from minority or underrepresented groups. The article is well-developed and it is shown in the level and quality of information that is displayed on the page.

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take several forms. The most essential things are to identify the biggest shortcomings and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.