User:JRDavisjr/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: (link) Mean world syndrome
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen this article to evaluate because it strikes me as a very interesting syndrome that I believe could be true. We do live in a dangerous world where media often shows us violence-related content. I am curious to learn more about what mean world syndrome is, who coined the term, etc.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead offers a concise and clear introductory sentence defining mean-world syndrome in an easy to understand way.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the lead briefly describes all of the article's major sections including: background information, research findings, updates and later research, evolution of mass media. It does not specifically say Cultural Indicators Project although the Lead has a summary of the 1968 study done by Gerbner. The Lead also does not mention the Mean World Syndrome Documentary.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The Lead does not include information that is not presented in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I feel like the Lead is concise with just the right amount of detail. However, the Lead could benefit from naming the Cultural Indicators Project and mentioning the Mean World Syndrome Documentary since they are included as major sections of the article.

==== Lead evaluation: Overall, I feel like the Lead is put together in a concise and easy to read way. There are a few things I would add and a few things I would leave off to make the Lead stronger. I have mentioned what I would add above, and I would recommend changing quote (4). I do not like the perceived tone the quote "it's a handful of global conglomerates that have nothing to tell, but a great deal to sell" gives off. ====

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The content is updated through 2018, but I do think more resources is needed to strengthen the updates and later research. I would also like to see content from beyond 2018.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content that is included belongs but more resources are needed to strengthen the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? To be honest, I am not sure if addresses one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, but I do believe it addresses an underrepresented topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I do think as I stated above the quote about "global conglomerates that have nothing to tell, but a great deal to sell" should be left off and replaced with a more neutral quote. The quote certainly did not sit well with me, and I feel sure others would have the same opinion.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think for the most part, the viewpoints are represented fairly. However, the entire article feels underrepresented and there is a need for more resources.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? While the article states findings that would most likely persuade viewers to limit TV viewing, I do not think the article attempts to persuade readers.

==== Tone and balance evaluation The tone and balance of the article is even. No aspect takes over the article, and all of the aspects are covered. The only quote I found to have a tone that might off-put readers is "global conglomerates that have nothing to tell, but a great deal to sell" ====

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the article is backed up by reliable secondary sources which include the American Academy of Pediatrics and scholarly journals including the Journal of Communication and Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current through 2018.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There seems to be a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is organized well. It is concise, clear and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no spelling or grammatical errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is organized well into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article does not have images. It does have a few links that take you to images such as the link on Dr. Gerbner which takes you to a page with his picture.
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Behind the scenes conversations included: No sources cited and nothing beyond what could be mere opinion, "mean world syndrome" is garbage, it's a phenomena not a disorder, shouldn't be liked with psychology or science. Someone had flagged it with a notability tag, but it was taken down because the article was backed up with reliable sources. Article is a good start but needs more diverse resources/examples.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated Start-Class on the project's quality scale and Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. It is part of the WikiProject Psychology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? When looking at articles to stay away from, one of the things I noted was staying away from articles on media.

==== Talk page evaluation I agree with some of what I read on the Talk page. I do think it's a notable topic, and I feel that with more resources, the article would be strengthened. I disagree that mean world syndrome is garbage. I do agree that the article is a good start and needs more diverse resources. ====

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Overall, I feel this article is done well. It definitely needs more diverse and more current resources. I think mean world syndrome is a notable topic that deserves more attention.
 * What are the article's strengths? Organization, clear and concise, easy to read. Good resources.
 * How can the article be improved? The article needs more diverse and more current resources. The updates and later research portion needs more information.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is a good start, and it is well thought out, but it is lacking in resources. The article needs to be updated with current research, and the article needs to include more information on social media because of the climate we currently live in.

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: Talk:Mean world syndrome