User:Hghosheh/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.
 * I chose this article because it talks about my major. Therefore, I thought I could learn a few things from it or maybe add a few notes of my own knowledge to it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead clearly defines the topic and explains what it is about using other keywords/synonyms. It describes the similarities and differences of the topic. The lead gives a brief description of everything following it. It is also very specific and straight to the point.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

Each point in the article's content is relevant to the topic and its history. The article's content is mostly definitions and explanations, therefore, yes it is up-to-date. All the content stated in the article belongs to the topic of the article. There is no sign of any misrepresentation in the content of the article.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

All of the information in the article seems very generalized and mainly stating facts and definitions.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The references section links to all the information in the article.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

It is very concise and easy to read. Might even be too easy to read. There are no errors in grammar or spelling. The article is well organized and broken down to into clear sections that reflect hr major points.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are no images or media provided in the article.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There are many opinions about the article being vague and lacking real and deep information about the topic. Another opinion is that it needs improvement and "cleanup by expert required". The article is not a part of WikiProjects.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

It is very straight to the point. It may contain specific keywords, however, it might lack a more deep literature in description.


 * 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?

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: