User:Jessicabasquin/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: Public relations
 * I chose this article to learn more about the Public relation field

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. The lead give a summary of what will be explained into details.
 * 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? Lead explains the difference between PR and publicity.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Not overly detailed. Gives room for the information to be explained in much more detail.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes the content is relevant to communications.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes the information is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? To my knowledge there isn't any content missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This article does not give any information on equity gap or historically underrepresented population.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article is neutral and very informative.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, but they do say that more people are being hired as a public relation specialist then the hire of journalists.
 * 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? I would not say favor, but it states that the PR field is in high demand as social media popularity remains.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, facts in article are backed up by reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, within the last 10 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * 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? Clear and straight to the point of the topic.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Nothing that stood out.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Well organized with sections (Definition, History, Tactics, Ethics)

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, one image of media conference.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes and relatable to the topic.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, it has its citation.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? N/A
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Level 4, It's apart of Journalism, advertising, media and technology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? There is no difference.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Level 4 vital article and is a C-class article
 * What are the article's strengths? Journalism, advertising, media and technology.
 * How can the article be improved? By just keeping the information updated as social media evolves yearly.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? As well 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: