User:Ellegross/Evaluate an Article/catfish

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)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Yes. No.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes. The lead includes information regarding sexual misconduct charges against Nev Schulman. As well as information about important co-hosts of the show. Overly detailed.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the majority of the content is relevant to the topic. However, something that distracted me within the first paragraph of the article was the information about Schulman's sexual misconduct allegations. The content could use some serious updating as the news reports used in the description were from when the show was initially released. For example, the Hollywood report published an article about the show from 2013. There is also a statistic from 2015 regarding the number of received applications Nev Schulman receives for the show. It would be interesting to see if the number of applications has increased within the last five years. Information regarding the show's current host(s)/co-host(s) could help benefit the page. A more accurate depiction of what a "hopeful" and a "catfish" are. I think it would also be beneficial to add information about success stories regarding the show, that could add to the "Reception" category. I think if the word "Reception" was also explained that would be beneficial.
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

Overall the article seems pretty neutral. Seems like there are more claims towards the potential "catfisher" than the "hopeful." Viewpoints regarding the catfish are underrepresented as the show focuses solely on the relationship with the hopeful or at least initially. As the reader it made me feel like the "catfisher" was the bad guy in the TV show. When in reality the catfish can end up being who they say they are. I feel there is a lot of biased place on the "hopeful" as they provide the most personal information for the hosts/ co-hosts.
 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 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

The majority of facts are referenced with appropriate sources. However, some facts are supported with Youtube videos that seem less credible.
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?

Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

Yes for the most part. Yes. Minor spelling errors. I feel like the sections aren't very clear and a lot of the information kind of blends together.
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

Not really, the article just includes an image of the shows name. It would be beneficial if there were photos of the host(s) and co-hosts to give the reader a visual perspective. Yeah, pretty standard captioning. No, there is no description or author's name regarding who took the image. There's only one in the very top right-hand corner of the page.
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

Behind the scenes there are conversations regarding pre-existing terms of what signifies a "catfish". Whether or not the term has existed or did the creators make up the name; there are even arguments regarding it. Also, there is speculation as to whether the show is viewed as "authentic" or not. The article is rate c-class, low importance in terms of television episode coverage/ reality television. And C-class in all other categories. Wikipedia differs from the way we've talked in class as it discusses the content is more needs-based dynamic. Meaning the information is really just plastered on there for someone to get an idea of what reality television show is. I feel like the information isn't really intrinsicially driven, nor is it financially benefitting anyone from posting the information.
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall published, solid C. It gets the overall point of the television show across. The categories could be reworded to be more specific. The information/ supporting quotes could be updated. The completeness is pretty good, it's not in bad shape but could use improvement.
 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: