User:IndianToast81/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestreaming

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.) I chose this article because I have always been interested in livestreaming and lifestreaming is not all that different. I also just watched a video about Justin.TV and found it to be very interesting and this article goes into depth about Justin.TV. Lifestreaming matters because it is a way for people to express themselves and show people what they are up to in daily life almost like a diary but through a virtual setting. My first impression of the article was that it was good but could use some more detail and examples especially in the section about the benefits of lifestreaming.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.) Lead Section: yes the lead is concise and does describe the topic at hand. The lead however does not include a brief description of the article's major section, and the lead is concise. Content: The content in the article is relevant to the topic. The content is up to date on certain sections. Most of the content does belong but one section labeled Far Horizons seems to stand out. Tone and Balance: The article does stay neutral but uses some citations of people who present opinions. It also does not appear to be any claims that are heavily biased in one position. Some sections like the benefits of lifestreaming are a little underrepresented and could use more information and factual evidence. Sources and References: Most every fact is backed up by evidence to support the information provided. Some of the sources are a bit old going back to the 1990s and early 2000s more up-to-date articles would be better. There are definitely better sources available especially in the section about Justin.TV better more reputable sources could be used. The links provided do work. Organization and writing quality: The article for the most part is well written, there are definitely sections where the author is too vague and needs more information. The author often goes for concise paragraphs when more information is usually needed. Yes there are grammatical and spelling errors in the article. The article is broken down into easy to understand sections however the need for certain sections could be looked into. Images and Media: The article does contain images to enhance the understanding but could use more as there are only 4 throughout the whole article. The images are well captioned but some could be more concise and another image could use more of a caption. The images are laid out in a visually appealing way but better images could be used like a better picture of Justin's capcam. Talk page discussion: There are some discussion going on in the talk page like how there are not any recent events listed the latest event in the article was 2013. Someone also talks about how a certain image is of livestreaming not lifestreaming which is not what the article is about. We have really yet to cover lifestreaming in class so I can only know how these people in the talk page are referring to it as. Overall Impressions: The article strengths are that it is concise in most areas which is good and needed as well as it has good section on lifecasting. The article can be improved in many ways for example adding more detail in certain sections like Transparency and authenticity. It also has a few grammar and spelling errors throughout. The article I believe is well developed but is still underdeveloped in the sense that it could use more detail.