User:Cquinn1112/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: (link) Mass communication
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I am majoring in "Mass Communications" so this article would be one I personally can relate to.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead acknowledges common topics, but not all major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all information is in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise and to the point.

Lead evaluation
The Lead gives a concise overview of the topic, but does not explain all sections that are found in the article. However, many of the main topics explained do take in part what was left out in the Lead. Overall, while concise, the Lead could use more information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, all content relates to Mass Communication.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The forms of media are up-to-date, but most of the topics do not have dated examples.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All content is relevant to the topic.

Content evaluation
The content in the article is relevant to the main topic. However, since each area is in a broad field, the information given is short, with links to each specific field for further reading. The content is a very broad overview of each field in Mass Communications.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral? No, the article is not neutral in certain areas.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are biased claims that interactive media, mainly video games, create aggression and violence in real life.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Video games causing violent behavior is overrepresented in the article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article favors people to be wary in using social media and personal devices, such as phones.

Tone and balance evaluation
In most areas, the article appeared unbiased. However, certain areas favored certain claims. This mainly applied to how social media can be dangerous, as well as how video games can increase aggression in people. The article could be edited to favor a more neutral position, stating the claims and counterpoints to these areas.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are reliable sources used.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, all sources are thorough in their points.
 * Are the sources current? Most sources are from within the past twenty years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Several links work. Most others have to manually searched.

Sources and references evaluation
Most sources appear to be recent, thorough, and peer-reviewed pieces. However, most also had to be manually searched, making it more difficult to check the sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article is concise and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not see any major grammar or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article breaks down its topics into clear sections.

Organization evaluation
The article is very well organized, with few errors. It is easy to navigate and find a specific area to research.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, no images are used.
 * Are images well-captioned? No images used.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images used.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images used.

Images and media evaluation
The article does not contain any images or media. It makes the article appear less visually appealing, and does not add anything to enhance understanding of the topic.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Should more information be given? Is it too vague?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Many argue that the article is too vague and doesn't offer enough information in the topic.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The article describes the various fields it can be applied in, outside of "Professional Writing". It gives more examples in visual media.

Talk page evaluation
There was plenty of discussion involving the article, including information, citation, and accuracy.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status? The article is short, but offers enough information and links for further reading.
 * What are the article's strengths? Plenty of areas to continue research, with links to all the different fields.
 * How can the article be improved? More images should be added, and more information to each section.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say the article is somewhat underdeveloped, as much information is found from links provided in the article.

Overall evaluation
The article is fairly concise, but offers enough areas to continue reading. However, it doesn't offer enough in-depth pieces on its own.

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: