User:Katietaylor22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Political communication

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it seemed interesting and has a good base but also a lot of room to improve.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The lead includes a sentence defining what political communication is and as the lead continues it expands on how it is studied and how media has changed political communication. Instead of mentioning the US, Middle East, and United Nations this introduction focuses on the study of political communication and the effect media has on it. It also mentions modes of persuasion (Pathos, Ethos, or Logos) and those are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. I think the lead is wordy and hard to follow. The focus doesn't align with the sections of the article and it is also missing a citation. Overall I think the lead is more about how political communication is studied and what it is and the following sections are about the strategic political communication in different countries.

Content: The first section of the content defines the topic and I think this is relevant and important for the readers understanding of political communication and the different aspects of it. The following sections confuse me slightly because I don't see the right connections being drawn. The "torture for intelligence policy" is spoken about in detail but the connection to the overall topic of political communication and how this policy is important to it is not there. The United Nations section is showing how political communication effects the organization and the world. These sections still feel confusing and more like lots of evidence and no conclusions being drawn. I like the idea of comparing the different areas and how their communication is different but I think it could be done more effectively. This article talks about the disconnect between political officials and citizens in the Middle East which is speaking on traditionally underrepresented populations. The content seems mostly up to date, some of the sources are a little old but overall that does not seem like an issue.

Tone and Balance: I think the article is neutral because I don't feel like there is any position that I am being swayed to believe or lean into. The article does talk about refugees and terrorism with the Bush administration and that could be interpreted in a certain way if it is not written about very clearly with concise words and only facts. There are no specific sentences that appear to have bias but I think the US section is talked about in greater detail than the Middle East and UN is without a particular connection to the whole topic of the article. To my knowledge all minority viewpoints are accurately described and the author is not trying to make the reader agree with or believe one thing, it just speaks objectively. The section on social media could try to make a reader thing social media is a negative thing for political communication. This could be seen as bias and shows evidence about little fact checking which could let audiences be manipulated by political figures.

Sources and References: All the information in the article has sources to back it but some parts are missing citations. The author has many thorough sources which gives them all the information they need to write without bias. Some of the sources are older but most of them are current. The sources are published and peer reviewed works, some of which are written by people in minority groups. I don't think any better sources could be used since these are credible and current.

Organization and Writing Quality: I don't know if it is from the hurricane stress and being displaced since we had to evacuate but when I read this I was having a hard time following during certain sections. I do not think the article was as clear and concise as it could be and I think it needs to explain some of the terms used so that people without political or communications studies knowledge could follow easier. I don't see any spelling and clear grammar issues but the sentences are wordy and I think sometimes they go into too much detail. I appreciate the research done to learn so much about the topic but I think it needs one general focus and sometimes the article doesn't follow that. The sections are broken down well but I think the sections should all connect to the overall topic of political communication and I don't think the connections are always clear.

Images and Media: This article has one photo of George Bush and it is placed next to the introduction section instead of being near the United States section where Bush is spoken about. The caption explains where he is speaking and is relevant to political communications because speeches from politicians are a big part of that but I think it could be placed where he is talked about. I also would add more photos so the reader can look at something and have it look more appealing overall. Wikipedia encourages authors to use their own photos in articles but I do not think the author took this picture. If the image is under a free license or was released into public domain there is no copyright on it. This image isn't tagged with an owner like others on the web are so I am assuming it is following the copyright rules.

Talk Page Discussion: In the talk page they are discussing changes to the social media section of their article. They deleted what was not relevant to communications and added how the media has impacted elections and can spread false information. This article is a part of a Wiki Education Foundation- course assignment and is rated as a level 5 vital article in society. It says it is rated as start-class high importance. I don't think there is much of a difference between the way this article speaks about topics than the way we have in class. It presents social media as a negative thing that can spread misinformation and we spoke about it negatively impacting relationships.

Overall Impression: The overall status of the article is ok. There is definitely room for improvement. The strong thing this article has is a lot of good reliable sources and information but it is presented poorly. If the information was presented clearly the article would be much stronger. The article has everything it needs to succeed but was developed poorly.