User:Kenziehofmann/Evaluate an Article

Media system dependency theory
I have chosen this article because it highly relates to the current issues we are facing in today's society on the dependency of media and how it is such a broad concept.

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead begins the article in a strong fashion by stating what the topic is and who developed the theory. Although the introduction provides great detail about what media system dependency theory is without being overly detailed, it does not address the primary sections of the article.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content provided throughout the article is relevant to the topic and does not stray away into other disciplines that do not work with the article. The content used throughout the article had a large portion of sources that date from 2012 to a couple decades prior. When reviewing the article, the author could have gotten rid of the section that discusses studies in social media. I find that it broadens the topic too much and doesn't include enough generalization to be used in the article. The topic does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gap nor does it address topics that are correlated to populations which are underrepresented.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The overall tone of the article is neutral and informative. The lead provides great detail about important information and when presenting an approach done by one, provides the reasonings given for the opposite side. There is no tone throughout the article that suggests that the lead is attempting to persuade readers into a particular school of thought.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The lead used Ball-Rokeach as a primary source throughout the article for much of the facts provided on MSD. When reviewing the list of references, many references that were used were peer-reviewed articles that have been updated within the past 30 years. Although there are a few other authors used, much of the information provided was through Sandra Ball-Rokeach likely because she is the theorist behind Media system Dependency. When reviewing the links provided, I was routed to the journals which held the works of Ball-Rokeach


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article was well written and easy to follow. There were no grammatical errors and the vocabulary chosen made it easy for readers to grasp the full concept of what MSD is. The organization of the article made it especially easy to understand. The lead broke down the article into key sections, providing a simple sentence as to what would be discussed and used bolding as a way to highlight the concepts being presented.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

While the article did include an image of the diagram of Ball-Rokeach's conceptual model and provided a clear statement as to what it was, there could have been additional images used to elevate the article. Even an image of Ball-Rokeach could have provided readers with a greater appeal for the article. Additionally, since there was a lot of listing of concepts and comparisons, the lead could have included a table to break up the article so that it was not solely paragraph based.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There are no discussions about this article as it is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgetown University. It is stated that the topic is part of Wikiproject psychology.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall, this article does not seem to be one that is highly dependable. The fact that there is no ranking of it at all and no discussion on it demonstrates that the information may not be 100% accurate. However, I do like the structure of the article and that the writer did a strong job at attempting to generalize the topic and not weigh in to too many fields. I do believe that it can be further developed, as it is on the right track.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: