User:Kheine/Evaluate an Article

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


 * Name of article: Media Ecology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It was on the list of articles to be assigned and seemed broad enough of a topic and had substance to be evaluated.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? I don't think so.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe the Lead section could be edited to be more relatable to the average reader - less academic.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, although some of it could be developed into their own individual Wikipedia pages.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? In reference to the first question of this section, the content of this site might have the opportunity to become its own page.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? No Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? I'm sure there are new case studies that could be incorporated as this is a topic that is everchanging.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Conversations around the language used in the article and if it is too academic (much like I mentioned earlier!). Connected and correcting edits throughout the existence of the article.
 * How is the article rated? I couldn't find the rating. (?) Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Media and Philosophy
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This article goes into more detail; but we're only a few weeks into the course.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths? Varying sections; informative and helpful topics.
 * How can the article be improved? Wordsmithing some of the sections to be more relatable for the average user.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Closer to well-developed than not.

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: