User:Emoore3/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: Mass communication
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Mass communication is a topic that I intend on pursuing in college, so it would benefit me to gain as much knowledge about it as I can. Moreover, it says specifically at the top of the page that this article doesn't meet Wikipedia's quality standards, so it is something that can most definitely be improved.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead includes an introductory sentence stating the definition of mass communication, which somewhat describes the article's topic, but it takes more than just that first sentence to divulge into the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the last sentence of the Lead includes a list of different mediums of mass communication all of which are covered at some point throughout the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead mentions that mass communication differs from other kinds of communication, like interpersonal and organizational communication, but these two forms are not present again in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I would say it is more concise rather than overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Hasn't been updated in awhile, while still stating at the top of the page that it needs improving. Sourcing is older material, so content could most likely be updated based on newer information
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is content that seems to not belong, as well as content that is missing. Article is vague and topic seems to be underepresented. Social media section includes an entire paragraph that is not that relevent, while other portions are lacking
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not particularly
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, says specifically at top of page that article contains some inaccurate claims.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There are some sources, but based on the topic, it could be so much more thorough and include more relevant sources
 * Are the sources current?
 * All sources date to 2017 and prior to 2017.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Seems that sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors, but there is always room for more and anything would benefit from having many different perspectives/points of view from people of every background
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * After checking a few, they work, but a comment on the talk page says some of the sources cannot be accessed.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is easy to read, but I wouldn't go as far to say it is well-written
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Some titles are not capitalized
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is broken down into sections that were eariler listed in the lead

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Discussion of vagueness, poor citations and sourcing
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is in the scope of both WikiProject Technology and WikiProject Media with a listing of a level-five vital article and a quality rating of start class on WikiProject Tecnology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * N/A

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Needs improvements
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Good base or draft, just needs to be reworked into something of greater value
 * How can the article be improved?
 * By being less vague, fixing citations, cleaning the whole thing up
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped, somewhat 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: