User:DipDopDip/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remix_culture

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am a fan of remix culture and so it immediately drew my attention. Looking through the article I noticed that some sections( particularly the domains of remixing section) had lots of information about certain topics, and yet very little info in others. I also did some preliminary research on academic research done about Remix culture and found that some of the most prominent authors had little or no citations in the article. I was also interested in adding a section about the affects of AI on remix culture, but the most promising research is in an expensive book that doesn't come out until November so I'm unsure if I would have enough, but will look into it further as I believe there should be significant discussion about it.

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


 * Although it does provide some important info in the lead, the first section after the lead is called simply "description", and I feel like either that section should be combined with the Lead Section, or some info from each section should be swapped
 * When describing remixing throughout history, the author centers copyright law rather than advancements in technology that enable remixing, which I feel does not reflect much of the content in the article.
 * The amount of detail and formatting are good, but the content of it could be improve

Content


 * I think that there is room to describe theory surrounding remix culture as there is hardly any, but I'm unsure if that would be in a different article/ should even be included in the first place.
 * A section at the bottom entitled criticism very briefly describes how some compare remixing to plagiarism, I think there could be more description around the discourse surrounding that.
 * Domains of remixing: Within this section there is uneven information about the different domains, with sections like "Film and video", "Grafitti", and "Software and other digital goods" providing lots of information on different types of remixing in these domains, while Music is surprisingly small. I think that more info could definitely be added to several sections especially Music.
 * Copyright: Copyright law is discussed repeatedly throughout the article, yet is one of the last topics to have a section. I think that understanding the affect of copyright law on remixing should be a more prominent section so that it informs readers on the rest of the article
 * Remixing in Religion: This is an incredibly short section, exclusively talking about the Bible and how it was "remixed" into other Christian religions. I think that this section does not belong in an article around remix culture, as there is no culture formed around remixing religions, and the sources chosen have no academic bases. One of them does not discuss remixing in the slightest, one is a link to a book that is a "remix" of the bible, and one is a blog post . Alternatively this could be included in the folklore section, as it discusses how stories that were a part of ancient religions disbursed, but I believe that the content of this section is unnecessary.
 * Reception and Impact: This section I feel should be renamed, as reception implies that "Remix Culture" was something that was released, even though it has been throughout history. If by reception it's referring to the Lessig's definition and discussion of remixing then this article either should center him more, or it should be in an article about him. This section could be renamed simply "Social Impact", or possibly divide this section up further describing different discourses surrounding remix culture. I do think the information in this section is meaningful to the article but the organization is questionable.

Tone and Balance


 * At the top of page is a warning stating that the article is written like personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay, meaning that I can spend time improving the bias in the article.
 * There is a mix of different writing styles that make the tone inconsistent

Sources and References


 * As previously mentioned, the Remixing in religion section cites questionable sources
 * Looking through the reference list, it seems most things that are cited are either from Scholarly sources or news sources, so the cited content seems largely fine
 * Some sections like "Internet and Web 2.0", "Intertwining of media cultures", and "Music" have no sources cited at all, and some other sections have very few. Some of these information may be difficult to find a source for as they are bordering on general knowledge, but still there should be more citations.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * When it comes to organization, I think that there is work to do, as copyright, an important section that helps readers understand the rest of the content, is one of the last, while less important sections like "Effects on Artists" and "Copyright and Remixing for Disability Purposes" are before the sections describing the History and Domains of remixing, the most important sections of the article.
 * Writing quality and style is inconsistent through out. In the section "Domains of Remixing", each subsection has a different style, with some doing bullet points of definitions, some describing examples of the remix, and some seemingly just trying to rationalize how the domain qualifies as a remix.
 * Most sections are reasonably concise and no spelling or grammatical errors that I noticed

Images and Media


 * The article already has a good amount of images and media, all well captioned and helpful to understanding.
 * In the section "Domains of Remixing", I think there are more opportunities for images and media to be included

Talk Page


 * The talk page is not too expansive, with some talking about improving the sourcing or discussing whether other articles should redirect to this page.
 * Some of it has suggestions for improvements, many of them that I already discussed here

Overall Impression


 * I think that this article is between underdeveloped and poorly developed, most of the problems being with lack of information/citing of said information. Some of the information I believe needs to be reworded for consistency of style and readability.
 * The article has a good basis of ideas, I think it just needs to be reworked a bit, and then fill out or remove the sections that are lacking information