User:Dakotafanelli/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

Assigned to me

Evaluate the article

Lead Sections:


 * The first sentence completely describes the topic of the article
 * It does not talk about the other section that are in the article, like the history, context, implications, or pop culture
 * It does not talk about the publication date or how much he earned but its mentioned in the lead section
 * It is concise

Content:


 * History and pop culture was relevant, but the other sections, context, implications were not super relevant to the article
 * It is pretty up to date with the most recent edit being September 19, 2023
 * The section of implications doesn’t really belong, there is info that really isn’t needed. There really isn’t any information that is missing
 * It doesn’t really deal with equity gaps. The only thing would be what we learned about the author and that he contributed to the New Yorker. It doesn’t address anything about underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance


 * The beginning of it is neutral up until the implication section. That section deals more with what the author of the article is getting out of the cartoon versus staying neutral.
 * The article doesn’t really show viewpoints except for the implications section. It does give a few viewpoints of Sherry Turkle.
 * The cartoon in itself might be trying to sway people but that due to it being a cartoon. The article itself does not try to sway anyone.

Sources and References:


 * The sources used seem to be reliable. Except for sources 11 and 14 which don’t seem to be necessary for the article.
 * Yes the sources are thorough, all of the sources talk about parts relevant to the topic, such as the actual cartoons, the author, or the New Yorker
 * Yes the sources are current, the most recent sources are from around 2010-2017
 * A few of the sources work, while a couple of them do not work

Organization and Writing Quality:


 * Yes it is concise and is easy enough to read and understand
 * There are no grammatical or spelling errors within the article
 * It is well organized and they split it within sections that make sense

Images and Media:


 * It includes the cartoon so yes it is relevant to the topic
 * The images are well captioned and explain what is being shown
 * Yes they adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations
 * The images are laid out well in a visually appealing way

Talk Page Discussion:


 * There is not much going on, the last update/conversation was from 2016, which was the ones adding the unnecessary links
 * It is rated good, it is part of a Wikiproject called “articles for creation”  “Computing internet” “internet culture” and “sociology”

Overall Impression


 * The status of the article says that it is a good one
 * The strengths are being concise and getting to the point
 * The article could be improved by staying on topic, not sharing their thoughts on implications, and using relevant information
 * It is underdeveloped, could use more relevant information

= Social media intelligence =

Lead Section
- The introductory sentence is clear and is telling what Social Media Intelligence is

- It gives us what it allows a person to use but it doesn't go into much depth about what the article might talk about

- The lead is very contained on the information it gives

Content
- some of the content in the article does not contribute to the main idea of the article

- content is not up to because they got most of their information from articles form the early 2010

- some of the content should be taken out of this article and some new information should be added

Tone and Balance
- the article overall is neutral

- there is no sign of bias in this article

- the article does not try and persuade the readers

Sources and References
- the sources do not relate to anything about the topic at hand

- the sources are not as current as they should be

- they do bring historical points up in the article as needed

- The sources work but they are not relevant

Organization and Writing Quality
- the article could have been written more clearly

- The article does have some grammar mistakes

- the article is not broken down into sections

Images and Media
- the article has no pictures

Talk Page Discussion
- low importance article

- in a couple wiki projects

- there is not much conversation going on in the talk page

Overall Impressions
- low quality/ low importance

- strength: it is contained, it is not overly long

- improvements: grammar, headings, images, and sources

'''- I do not think the article is completely finished. I think it needs a lot of work before it becomes a good article.'''