User:Hannah8615/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: Internet celebrity
 * I have chosen to evaluate the article on Internet celebrities because it is an emerging sector of fame that I find fascinating, both because of the way these people become famous and because of the relevance to our course. Many Internet celebrities are bloggers who frequently analyze social media and engage with their followers or fans on a large scale, and attribute their success to that. Others made a single post that went viral overnight on a popular social media platform.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is a strong start, but unfortunately goes downhill from there. The introductory sentence is concise, clear and informational. The paragraph is brief and provides a general description of what an Internet celebrity is and how they may have achieved fame. However, it does not provide a thesis to introduce the article's major sections so it is too concise and could use more depth. Moreover, the information in the lead does not go into substantial further detail beyond this paragraph.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content varies in relevance to the subject. The "History" section is repeated and irrelevant because it gives more background into the beginnings of social media rather than media influencers and Internet celebrities. The "Types" section is far too brief only discusses Youtube, micro-celebrities and the Chinese equivalent of Internet fame, all in equal portions when social media fame is the current determinant of Internet celebrity status. Filler words such as some, most and usually are used without sourcing, making the article unsupported in some parts. However, the introductory paragraph was relevant to the article topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
Article tone seems to favor Youtube celebrities and appears as though the writer has an affinity for Youtubers and Youtube fame. The following sections are less thorough in research and detail. The last sections, "Income" and "Interacting with Fans," are both directed toward Youtube fame and lack information on other types of Internet celebrities. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader to a particular position using persuasive language, but it lacks more information in its intended subject.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are facts that are not directly followed by a source, so they appear to be opinionated without a source to connect. Sources in the reference list are varied and plentiful. They range from academic journals to Business Insider to Forbes. Other sources that are unfamiliar or not big name journals provide accurate links and are correctly used and cited within the article. Source to content ratio is high, but not all sources are relevant to the topic or do little to support the overall point of the article. Historically marginalized individuals were accounted for and considered in a reference to a study of influencer popularity in Asia. Links worked when clicked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
Organization is poor due to the presence of a repeated "History" section within the writing. It appears that the first "History" section is a short excerpt of the larger "history" section later in the article. The larger section provides more insight into Youtube, but contains more grammatical errors and can be removed entirely. Other individual sections vary in formatting strategy and language. Sectioned topics are labeled.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There are two pieces of media and both are relevant but do not strengthen the article. The photo of the fashion influencer and description does nothing to support why she is an influencer other than explain why she is one. The photo of PewDiePie is strong in the sense that he is one of the most subscribed-to Youtubers, but a specific number would have strengthened the "celebrity status" point to any uninformed reader. Moreover, both people should have had a subsection on their Internet popularity to support the definition of Internet celebrity and to explain the area of their influence. Both images are aligned to the right to maintain a clean appearance on the page.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The article is part of WikiProjects Internet and Internet Culture, both of high importance to Wikipedia, currently. It is given a C-class rating because it is missing substantial information on the topic and contains some irrelevant material as well. There is little in the Talk section, and suggested edits by other users have not been made by original writer of the article. The article contains little connection to class discussion. However, it discusses blogging and the nature of it, which we are attempting in class now.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
I would argue that this article has significant basic-level information. For that reason, it is lacking in completeness and underdeveloped. There is a lot of general information but little insight on the intended purpose of the article, which is "Internet celebrity." This discusses influencers and influencer marketing, so it should be labeled Influencer or other related title. The article can be improved with a general read-through to check for grammatical errors, as well as a restructuring of sections in order to achieve better flow between topics.

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: