User:Kplou/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Mediatization (media))

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I selected this article because I am interested in the connection between mediatization and society. It matters because media is used all around the world, especially in larger scale events such as politics. My Preliminary impression was that it was going to have all the necessary information to accurately explain mediatization.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section includes a concise overview of the articles topic. It mentions how the article will dive deeper into the relationship between mediatization and society, including political communication. The main section talks about the schools of mediatization and sociocultural change and while the first sentence does not specifically mention this, it is mentioned within the first paragraph. The lead does not contain any information that is not present in the article. The lead is not overly detailed and it clearly states what the article will be focusing on.

All the content discussed in the article is relevant and each section is given enough space to adequately talk about the importance of that matter without taking up space from other sections. There is no content present that does not belong there; however, I would suggest that there is some important content missing. While the bibliography shows that some of his work is cited, William Schulz is not mentioned in the article and as someone who provided great insight into political communication and mediatization and developed four components that go alongside mediatization, I believe that he should be referenced within the article. This article does not deal with wikipedia's equity gap.

The article is not biased and is written in a very neutral tone. It gives information on the subject but does not offer any opinions on it. There are no view points mentioned that are overrepresented or underrepresented; however, as I mentioned previously, there may simply be view points that are missing from the article.

The sources appear to be credible. A lot of the information is taken from books, newspapers, and scholarly articles which is a good place to gain valuable and accurate information on topics. Sometimes this information can be biased and the writer would have to make it more neutral, which this author did accurately. The links are up to date and accurate so readers are able to fact check the information if they would like.

The article is well written as the points are broken down into relevant sections which are further discussed and make links to real events and other sections in the article. Unfortunately, the article does not include any images which may have helped the reader make connections. An example would be, when discussing politics related to mediatization, a picture of an election or campaign may have added nice detail. This article is not part of wikiprojects.

Overall, the article is well written and easy to follow. It makes good connections that would help the reader understand the topics. The sources the information is drawn from are accurate which gives this article factual information. The article is missing images which add a nice visual touch for the reader and, as previously mentioned, it is also missing some good theorists in this field. This article would be a good starting point for someone wanting to know more about mediatization.