User:Glparks/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: Politico-media complex (Politico-media complex)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because it discusses the relationships between public spheres, interests, media, and politics. A core part of this course which I am editing for Wikipedia for is the study of disinformation, so this article related to media and politics seemed relevant.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It could be more concise. But it's not too bad--it's a dense subject.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It does seem like there could be more discussion of social media in relation to the PMC, if there is more recent, significant research around the use of social media over the past decade with the PCM to report on.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The tone of the article seems consistently neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? One thing I noticed was the large section dedicated to Noam Chomsky's views on the PMC. Chomsky seems to be a highly influential figure when it comes to this subject, but the way the final section is framed feels like a bit much.
 * 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? Seems so.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? To a fair degree, but probably not exhaustively.
 * Are the sources current? Mostly.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I tried about five, three worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is decently written, but there are some sentences that could be more clear.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not really.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, except for the last two sections. The subject matter of the last two sections is relevant, but the organization and transition into them is not clean.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, a decent amount of images that aid in understanding.
 * 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? Yes, except for the last one IMO.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The talk page features several conversations about content to delete, how some of the content may be inadvertently reproducing the effect of Propaganda page, and even a dispute over a proposed deletion of the page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It seems to be rated as mid-tier article that needs improvement due to what appears to be some original research in some places. It is of interest to six wiki projects, including subjects like politics and sociology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Although we have not discussed this PMC framework/model specifically, it does relate to our ongoing discussion of media, biases, disinformation, and how all of that relates to public spheres and public interests. It differs from the approach of our course in that it discusses the impact of film, television, and even public scandals on different ideologies. Generally, this article and the PMC model itself seem to provide discussion of the topics we are studying (such as disinformation and media evolution) from a more critical theoretical perspective.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Active.
 * What are the article's strengths? Many reliable sources and a fairly well condensed history of key aspects of the evolution of media.
 * How can the article be improved? The different sections of the article could be previewed more clearly in the lead, in order to explain the rationale of why these particular sections are the ones included.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would assess this as an article-in progress. It does not read like a solid, complete article, but there is a substantial amount of reliable research and organization employed already.

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: