User:Foxesarefun/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Digital media

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I thought it was be interesting to read and evaluate for this class. I think digital media is important in the study of digital rhetoric since it provides a platform for rhetoric to be consumed.

Lead

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence provides a short description of digital media.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it doesn't touch on most of the major subheadings listed in the article or their content.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is very short and informative, stating a vague overview of digital media as a whole.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Most of the sources are old and I feel like they should use more updated sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Feel like they should include more digital media examples that have come recently.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and balance

 * Is the article neutral? This article seems neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and references

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, some citations are missing. For example, more frequent citations should be present in the Politics section and the Circulation section.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Some of the sources seem outdated considering how evolving and important digital media is in the current society.
 * Are the sources current? Most of them, but some could use updated replacements.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?  Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article overall is well written and easy to follow. I would like to add more sections that are about more current topics.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some small errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Kinda, some of the subsections are small and not very relevant.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The images were not a good representation of digital media.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No.

Talk page

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * restructure the page
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * start class
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * very historical, barebones

Overall Impression

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Start-class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * good history about digital media.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * add more subsections
 * better pics
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * well developed but could still use a lot of editing