User:Goldie18/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Internet Troll

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I think it would be interesting to evaluate. When first reading the Wikipedia article I found a lot of material that needed editing. Additionally, there are numerous scholarly articles that discuss the topic of trolling. I believe it will be easier to find sources on a topic like internet trolling without it being too broad of a topic.

Lead section:

 * The post begins with a clear definition of troll as an internet slang.
 * The introduction contains a biased sentence and assuming the intentions of an internet troll without a proper source.
 * The lead is not overly detailed, however, it does not contain introductions for all the points made in the content.

Content:

 * Content is up to date.
 * The language section seems unnecessary to the entirety of the article
 * The article does discuss historically underrepresented groups under the corporate, political, and special interest sponsored trolls and psychological characteristics.

Tone and Balance:

 * The tone seems bias towards trolls being "mean-spirited"
 * The article negatively portrays trolls in the sentence, "This is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or manipulating a political process"
 * Sometimes the article seems to persuade how trolls are manipulative and evil.

Sources and References:

 * Sources are missing in several spots
 * Some sources such as, PCMAG.com and courier mail, are not reliable sources.
 * There are not sources in place of news articles
 * Sources are current
 * Links work

Organization and Writing Quality:

 * Found a grammatical error: "Using opinion manipulation trolls has been reality since the rise of Internet and community forums.
 * Article is written in a clear manner.
 * Article is broken down into several sections

Images and Media:

 * Only 3 images in the article, but they are informal images referencing the content.
 * All images are cited
 * The image showing a troll on Wikipedia id very small and placed in an unappealing way.

Talk Page Discussion:

 * The talk page consist of users outlining ideas to add to the page with references included. Looks similar to a sandbox.
 * The article is rated C-Class, mid-importance, and mentioned by a media organization titled, "Trolling the Airwaves"
 * The Wikipedia page is more formal than discussions of trolling in class.

Overall Impressions:

 * The article has a really good foundation but needs more citations, less bias, and more information.
 * Strengths include the clear language, sections of content, and general information is accurate.
 * Weaknesses include lack of reliable sources, biases, information not cited, lack of media.
 * I believe the article is poorly developed.