User:Jvin17/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Internet Challenge

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The lead section is concise and clearly explains the author's point. It does not contain any information about the major sections, however the article is not lengthy and does not have multiple parts to it. The lead mentions a few examples of what are considered "internet challenges," but the author does not specifically elaborate on them besides adding a citation to each one.

Content: The content of the article is very short and does not contain much information on the subject. The content is relevant to today's current society, but a little outdated. Some of the challenges mentioned were from a few years ago if not longer. The author gets their point across, but does not elaborate on any of the points they mentioned.

Tone & Balance: The article has a neutral tone for the most part, however it is heavily leaning towards one perspective on the topic. The author mostly focuses on the negative aspects of internet challenges and fails to examine any of the ones that had positive outcomes. Though there are positive challenges mentioned in the article, there is not elaboration on any of them.

Sources & References: The author provides citations for almost all of their claims. In one section, the author mentions how "some challenges have drawn criticism for their rude or disrespectful nature," but fails to cite any source for that claim. Some of the sources are from known, reputable sites such as The Washing Post and Time. However, the author sites sources that do not have any information explained in the article. There are certain topics mentioned, but again there is no elaboration on them. Some of the sources are a bit outdated (2014/2015) but still are reliable.

Organization & Writing Quality: The article is clear and concise. It is easy to follow and contains good word usage. There are no spelling or grammar mistakes that I recognize. The article is not broken into any sections because it is very short and none of the internet challenges mentioned are elaborated on.

Images & Media: There is no use of images in the article. There is a chart at the bottom of the page that lists different internet challenges and breaks them up into categories, however the author does not elaborate on any of them.

Talk Page & Discussion: There has been no conversations on this article within the "Talk" page. On the page, the only information is the rating of the article - Stub. This means the article meets little criteria and has an overall very basic description of the topic.

Overall Impressions: Overall, the article is just okay. It gives a clear and concise, basic description of the topic. It uses reliable sources and highlights mostly relevant information. However, the writers do not elaborate on any of the internet challenges mentioned in the article and there is only one section.

Which article are you evaluating?
Social media intelligence

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The article has a lead that is clear and to the point. It summarizes what the term "social media intelligence" refers to. However, the beginning paragraph does not elaborate on what the rest of the article is going to look like and it does not include information about the sections the article will be divided into.

Content: The content is relevant to because social media is very prevalent in our current world, however it is definitely outdated and should include information from more recent sources. There are certain pieces mentioned in the article that I feel as though could be left out because they are straying too far from the main point. There also is not very much content to begin with and the article should be updated to include subsections to further elaborate on the topic.

Tone & Balance: The article remains somewhat neutral, but I think the authors are putting too much focus into the negative aspects of social media intelligence and do not mention any of the benefits. All of the provided sources only share one perspective on the topic, so even though I do not think it is intentional, I think people could still be persuaded by the language.

Sources & References: There are only 7 different references used in the article, however it is fairly short so it is understandable at this point. About half of the sources attributed are written in another language, so I cannot tell if they are reliable. However, the other sources seem to be reputable. One of the sources appear to be an academic journal which is a positive sign. Another one of the sources does not appear when clicking on it and there is an error pop-up message when you try and access it. Sources that are removed from the website should be taken out of the article because people cannot cross check the writers' information.

Organization & Writing Quality: The article is not organized and does not contain any subsections to it. There is a "See also" section which allows the reader to go to different Wikipedia pages on topics similar to social media intelligence, but that is the only other part to the article. The article uses good language, but it is not laid out in a way that makes sense. The orders of the paragraphs do not make sense to me and I feel like there's a lack of transition between some of them.

Images & Media: There are no images or use of media in the article, though I think an addition would be very beneficial because it is an article on social media intelligence.

Talk Page & Discussion: There has been very little discussion under the "Talk" page on this article. It has not been updated since March, so there is a substantial gap between now and then. The article is not part of any Wikiprojects and is rated Stub, as it is a beginning article.

Overall Impressions: The overall topic of social media intelligence is one that I think would be great to have a Wikipedia page about because it is something that's been developing more and more over the past few years. I do not think the article has good content or sourcing at the moment, but I think it has potential to turn into something better with more effort. The description of the concept is well-written, but there are many different ways to elaborate on it and I think having some better organizational methods would help a lot too.