User:Maddiekeller/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: (Internet troll)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose to evaluate this article because the concept of Internet Trolls is something I am familiar with but am interested to know more about and could also add more information to where it is lacking.

Lead
Lead evaluation

The lead has a good strong introductory sentence which gives a good idea of what a troll is and what their purpose and origin is. The lead is missing a brief description or introduction to each of the major sections or topics that the article is going to cover. It lightly touches on an example of trolling in a specific television program in the lead but there is never more detail on that example at any other points of the article. It is a fairly concise lead, it covers all of the points that are necessary to understand the concept without being too wordy.

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic and provides good details about the background of trolls and details about them. The content is not as up to date as it could be, a lot of data they have is from up to 20 years ago. With how much social media and internet has advanced since then, there are definitely a lot more examples and data that they could include to strengthen this article.

Tone and Balance

 * Tone and balance evaluation
 * The article definitely has some points where it is neutral but for the most part it is definitely leaning more on the negative viewpoint of trolling. The negative points definitely overshadow any positives, if there are any discussed.There are many points of the article where they only cover negative aspects of trolling and say that they are intentionally disruptive and an annoyance. The article definitely portrays trolls as unpleasant and tries to persuade the reader to feel the same way.

Sources and references evaluation
Yes almost all of the facts in this article are backed by reliable sources and examples. The sources at the bottom all cover the points that are addressed in the article. The list of sources is very long and they all reflect aspects of the article and details from sections of the article. The sources are pretty current ranging from 2008-2019. So there is a good mix of recent and older information. After checking a few of the links, they work and are trustworthy.

Organization

 * Organization evaluation

After proofreading the article a few times, I did not notice any grammar or spelling errors. It is written pretty well and a lot of the wording is easy to read and very concise. There are no hard vocabulary or sentences it is all easy to understand and gets the point across easily. The sections are broken down in a very organized manner and they represent all of the main points accurately.

Images and media evaluation
The article only includes one image for trolling. It shows the troll symbol with an X through it to represent putting a stop to trolls online or "do not feed the trolls". So this image does help enhance the understanding of the topic because it shows that they are viewed negatively and are not wanted. This image is captioned well because it states the meaning of that image when it is used online. It does not look very visually appealing but it is just placed randomly throughout the text.

Checking the talk page
Talk page evaluation

The talk page consists conversations about inclusion of more coverage of trolling such as in politics, slang, early example of trolling. There are also discussions about the rewording of the definition in the introduction, sections that are seen to irrelevant or useless, and adding more images. The article is rated as C-class and it has been rated on high importance on the internet culture wikiproject. There is not many differences in the way wikipedia discusses this topic compared to how we do in class. It is a pretty straight forward topic and it is typically seen as an annoyance in the internet world.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * Overall evaluation
 * Overall evaluation

The articles status is pretty updated and informational, it is C-class and has not been checked for B-class status yet. The strengths of the article are the usage and origin sections. These sections are very detailed and concise, easy to read and help educate about the general use and origin of trolling. The article could be improved by adding more images and possibly taking out extraneous information such as the "corporate, political, and special interest sponsored trolls" section. This section feels like it is not necessary in the general understanding of the topic. There could also be more information added to the psychological characteristics section. I would say this article is 3/4 completed. There is good information to work with and it definitely accurately gets the point across but, there could be more and it could be proof read a few more times to take out the fluff.

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: