User:Krodg093/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Media Studies
 * Media studies


 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The article's topic is relevant to the topic, but it is missing a lot of key information. The article offers a brief definition of media studies, but then focuses entirely on how different countries teach the discipline. I think the article would benefit from including some major theories, perspectives and figures relevant to the field. I think it would also be important to explain how media studies is relevant in the real world, and how it is presented outside of academia.
 * Is it written neutrally? Yes the article holds an objective tone
 * Does each claim have a citation? A disclaimer at the top of the page warns that it lacks sufficient in-line citations. The article does offer links to other wiki pages explaining each media scholar, institution, theory or domain it references.
 * Are the citations reliable? The article seems to only pull on other Wikipedia articles, so the reliability is questionable.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)? I would not say the article tackles any equity gaps. It focuses on the significance of media studies in mostly wealthy western countries who are not underrepresented in an academic context.
 * Check out the article's Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page, too. Very little is included on the talk page thus far. Some minor edits and notifications it was supported by the Wiki Education Foundation.
 * Sources

Option 2

 * Communication studies
 * Article Evaluation
 * Yes the article's content is relevant to the topic, it offers a descriptive overview of the discipline and its related methodologies. It also provides some history to give context to the field, and a brief overview of the use of communication studies in Canada and the United States. The article has also begun a section of communication in relation to other domains, but this needs further development.
 * Yes the article is written neutrally.
 * There are a few facts that need citations, and a couple citations that failed verification.
 * Most of the citations appear reliable and pull on information from academics and renowned theorists in the discipline. There are a few citations though that failed verification, so this would be an aspect that needs revision.
 * No, this article is not bridging any equity gaps, it is focused on explaining a well known academic discipline, and its role in wealthier western countries
 * The talk page seemed to be entirely students critiquing the article for an assignment. The comments offer good criticism, but their is no interaction, or team work between wikipedians working on the article.
 * The talk page seemed to be entirely students critiquing the article for an assignment. The comments offer good criticism, but their is no interaction, or team work between wikipedians working on the article.


 * Sources

Option 3

 * Film studies
 * Article Evaluation
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic. The writers have defined the domain and offered a background of its history and development. The article includes a list of different approaches and prominent scholars, but this would benefit from expansion.
 * The article is written with a neutral tone.
 * Some in text citations for key dates and definitions seemed to be missing, but many links to different wiki pages further explaining approaches, schools and significant figures.
 * Many of the sources referenced were from news paper articles or other wikipedia articles, so their reliability is questionable.
 * Film studies is a newer and less studied domain, so this could be considered an underrepresented or less well-known academic field.
 * Writers have included updates when they modified or added information. Editors have asked each other questions and offered feedback and criticism (some more harsh).
 * Writers have included updates when they modified or added information. Editors have asked each other questions and offered feedback and criticism (some more harsh).


 * Sources

Option 4

 * Mass communication
 * Article Evaluation
 * Article Evaluation


 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources