User:Iluvcats34/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: Online Hate Speech
 * I have chosen this article because it can use a change of tone, and also does not include all significant sources.

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 is concise but it does not need "generally on social media and the internet" because the word "online" encompasses that.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, but could use more recent information. The most current source is from 2019, but so much has happened in 2020 regarding online hate speech that would really expand this article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Like I mentioned above, it should include information from 2020, given that hate speech has had much more serious consequences and hate speech is a driving factor of "cancel culture."
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it does appeal to underrepresented populations and I think it could use more information about what hate speech can really look like and how it targets underrepresented groups.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think this article did a little too much to explain what hate speech is and not enough explaining on its effects.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? In a way, but online hate speech is a topic that people should be against, right?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some source citations are incomplete.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, but would benefit from more current sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Some sources are incomplete, and some sources require a membership or subscription to read into that, so it may be hard to figure that out.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Some parts are redundant and eliminating that would make this article more concise so it can focus more on the effects of hate speech rather than what it simply is or how each social media company is handling it. In addition, some sentences run on and are hard to read while others I believe could use some more substance.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are some weasel words.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes but I think some of the topics can be divided.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Someone in the talk page suggested that the article incorportate criticism and controversy, and another person agreed with that. Another person suggested a topic to add to the article, and I also made a suggestion.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is rated c-class with a mix of high-importance and mid-importance, and is "of interest" to six different WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have not really gone into detail about hate speech in our class yet but I remember on the first day of class we talked about what will not be tolerated in our slack chats which made the tone regarding hate speech much more serious than this wiki article did.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It has a lot of information but could use some work.
 * What are the article's strengths? This article goes in depth with the history of hate speech and includes a lot of case studies and resources.
 * How can the article be improved? The tone and language itself can be improved, this article could use more up to date references and examples, and this article could talk more about the serious effects of hate speech. This article also only included extreme hate speech examples and did not really talk about the slight hate speech that often seems innocent but is actually hateful, for example, some things on the internet intend to make jokes but are actually offensive.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think this article wants to believe it is complete, but it really needs more work and needs more sources.

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: