User:John.Mooneey/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Digital media use and mental health

Evaluate the article

 * 1) Lead Section
 * 2) No citations in lead section
 * 3) Generic references to a “significant body of research” or “some experts” without naming or citing the source.
 * 4) Content
 * 5) The article is extremely thorough, having over a dozen different sections. It covers several different subtopics including the medical and societal effects of digital media, and the efforts being taken to curb the negative effects of digital media on mental health.
 * 6) Tone and Balance
 * 7) Formal tone
 * 8) Sources and References
 * 9) 194 different sources
 * 10) Certain claims are heavily sourced, with single sentences having upwards of 3 sources attached
 * 11) Many subsections are tied to the main article of their respective topic
 * 12) Organization and Writing Quality
 * 13) Long article, sections containing several paragraphs each
 * 14) Few charts or lists
 * 15) Appears thoroughly written
 * 16) Written in New Zealand English
 * 17) Images and Media
 * 18) 3 pictures
 * 19) One picture shows a reference to a study by displaying the results of it
 * 20) Talk page and discussion
 * 21) Article was once featured article of the day
 * 22) Article is level 5 importance to society, which is the lowest level
 * 23) One user felt the lead was not related to the content enough
 * 24) Overall Impressions
 * 25) I like where the article is going and how detailed it is. I don't like how it doesn't mention any of the sources or researchers in the lead section. It doesn't really affect much of the article as it mentions the studies in the different subtopics, but I think that it should mention some of the most used ones in the lead section.

Great Moon Hoax

 * 1) Lead Section
 * 2) Gives a very brief overview of what the "Great Moon Hoax" was because before I looked at this article I had no idea what it was
 * 3) There isn't much that is in this section in terms of specific details
 * 4) Content
 * 5) The articles goes over the many different things related to the Hoax itself
 * 6) What the hoax was about and what it talked about
 * 7) The Authors and what other things they did in terms of astronomy
 * 8) Reactions of what the public thought about the hoax
 * 9) The legacy that the Hoax left and things that it influences
 * 10) There are a lot of dates and stats for things that the authors discovered
 * 11) Tone and Balance
 * 12) The tone is serious and very straight forward
 * 13) There isn't much complex language in the article, it uses simple terms and sentences to describe the things that took place during the Hoax
 * 14) Sources and References
 * 15) 20 Sources
 * 16) People and other pieces of work have their Wikipedia link attached for further explanation on topics
 * 17) There aren't that many sources but it is a small article so pretty much every other sentence there is a superscript with a source attached
 * 18) Organization and Writing Quality
 * 19) Like I described in the Content section, the article is organized into 4 sections
 * 20) What happened in the Hoax
 * 21) Background about authors
 * 22) Reactions from people
 * 23) Legacy of the Hoax
 * 24) Images and Media
 * 25) There are some pictures and illustrations of things that were stated in the hoax such as batmen and civilizations on the moon with plants and pyramids
 * 26) There is also a picture of a book cover about the hoax
 * 27) There are names and link of different pieces of literature about the Hoax
 * 28) Talk page and discussion
 * 29) The article has not yet received a rating on the importances scale for journalism
 * 30) The talk page talks about how the person looked at the arabic version of the article and how it has better images. They proceed to ask if anyone knows how to put other images from other Wikipedia pages on the english page.
 * 31) Overall Impressions
 * 32) I think that it was an interesting article. I have never heard about this until I read this article. At first I was confused as to why the article was explaining things that the authors of the Hoax did and wondered why it was kind of supporting them when they wrote this. Then I realized that this was the 1800's and they didn't have the technology to confirm if this was or wasn't true.