User:Juhipatel18/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Mass communication)

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 it is the name of the course I am taking. It matters because mass communication impacts everyone and every aspect of daily life. My impression of it is that it is a well rounded article but could use some work still.

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.)

The lead section has a clear introductory sentence that gives the reader a good idea of what the topic is. It does a good job at introducing the topic and giving the right details. However, it may be a bit lengthy and too long for some readers. It does a decent job content wise. The sections are clearly broken up by headings and subheadings. The content includes diving into the different types of mass communication. The article is neutral and unbiased, just stating the facts rather than using persuasion or anything of the like. There is a plentiful of sources being used and cited very often. The sources seem diverse and not all from one person. I did not come across any spelling or grammar errors as I read through. There are actually no images or media so that could use some work. Images or media would make it more appealing to the reader. In the Talk Page, they brought up vagueness and how the article could use some specificity. It also talked about unclear references that needed fixing to become clearer. It also says the article is rated Start-Class on quality but not yet rated for importance. It is also part of Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignments. The article's strengths are that it uses headings/subheadings to clearly show what they are explaining. But it has many areas that could use improvement, such as adding media/images and being more specific rather than vague. For first glance I thought it was well-developed but based on the Talk Page, I would say it is underdeveloped and could use some work. ~