User:Kaitlin.Costello/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Online social support

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I'm interested in online social support and wrote a dissertation on this topic in 2015. This article is a stub and could use a lot of updates as this is a big research area.

Evaluate the article
Lead section


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, but it's very brief and does not fully capture the definition of online social support.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, there are no major sections except the lead in this article.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's both concise and overly detailed - this article needs sections with a revised lead section that clearly describes the sections.

Content


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * It is relevant but there are a lot of relevant concepts and research missing.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No, the most recent citation is 2014 and most citations are from the early 2000s. Online social support has changed a lot since the rise of platforms in about 2012.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, there is a great deal of missing content, including: a definiton of social support, why it may be different online, how it is expressed and received online, where online social support takes place, etc.
 * Needs a description and information about the difference between perceived and enacted social support
 * Four types of social support in face to face interactions and how they map to online support
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Online social support is often more accessible to disabled people, who are underrepresented

Tone and balance


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Sort of - it describes Facebook but no other platforms; two articles cited are about Facebook specifically. Given the controversy surrounding their social contagion and health study in 2011/12? I'm not sure this is the only platform we should be prioritizing
 * Talks about the benefits but not drawbacks of online social support
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Benefits of online social support are the only topic of discussion
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Benefits overrepresented, drawbacks/questions underrepresented
 * Facebook as source of online social support overrepresented
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * N/A
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Not really, but the framing does bias the reader towards the positive aspects of online social support especially when received through Facebook

Sources and references


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, this is a very vibrant and large research area and these 7 citations do not reflect the available literature on the topic of online social support
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, sources are from 2001-2016 with majority in 2014
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * One source is about LGBTQIA+ people
 * One source is about unemployed people
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Definitely
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, links work although some resources are behind a paywall

Sources and writing quality

Images and media
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is a bit hard to follow
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes, some grammatical errors in the first paragraph
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No, needs to be reorganized


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, did not answer other responses below
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * None, was added to a Project page for WikiProject Internet
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Start page, WikiProject Internet
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * N/A

Overall impressions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Start or stub
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Some good definitions and articles cited
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Citing more articles, going beyond facebook, giving definitions of online social support and its main benefits and drawbacks
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped and can use improvement!