User:Mchichable/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Media literacy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose to evaluate the Media literacy article because this is a fairly new word for me and I am curious about the information that is out there for those who are stumbling upon it for the first time too. As this article suggests, it is significant that media literacy is understood in its full picture, particularly because having this information can ultimately grant the user power. Therefore, it is critical that this article page outlines media literacy as a concept and provides resources/citation sources for further inquiry. If Wikipedia is accessible to a larger audience, as it claims to be, it is even more important that this concept is clear and complete. My first impression of the article was that it was fairly short. Compared to other articles that I had seen before, those articles had more links, images, and a longer list of references. This one, however, has only one picture and shorter sections of information. This could be because Media literacy is a broader topic, but then, if a user was researching this topic, their list of sources would be limited. I would like to see how other article pages linked to or related to Media literacy compare.

`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 does a very good job at giving a precise "definition" and outlining the contents of the article page. In only a few sentences, it is able to highlight the history of Media literacy as well as provide links for more historical information about the origins of Media literacy. If a student only had time to read the first few sentences, the lead section would be able to provide enough information. It does not give a description of the contents of the article page, but it is outlined for the user under "Content."

For the content portion of the article, all headers and subheaders are clearly identified and provide useful informative titles for the user. Like most Wikipedia articles, this one does a good job at providing historical context. In this case, this content is under "Media literacy education." As structured in the "Content," all of the informative sections are placed in an order logical and coherent. I will point out, however, that I do not understand why "History and international applications" comes at the end. For most Wikipedia articles, the standard is to provide historical based information towards the beginning. In addition, I am curious as to why the authors chose to include the "Theoretical approaches to media." While I understand the intention, the information under this section does not seem sufficient. In only a few sentences, these theoretical approaches are broadly explained. I think it would best to delete this information or add further links to the three named theoretical approaches. I think the format of the quick-list explanation does a poor job at explaining these concepts.

Another point I have is related to the balance of the page. If Wikipedia is accessible in thousands of languages and to people all around the world, then I think that the information provided should reflect that. Under "International applications," "North America" has the most information under its section compared to the "Middle East" section which only has two sentences. As we see, conversations pertaining to North America and the media are overrepresented and overshadow the limited content in the other International sections. Thus, I think that this page can work on providing more information under the "Asia," "Australia," and "Middle East" sections in order to better reflect its audience. This makes me question the bias of the authors who may be aiming to better represent North America as opposed to other countries. Besides this, I think that the tone for this article is neutral and does a good job at providing fact-related content/stats/sources only.

Also, as I mentioned previously, there is only one picture. The picture does include all necessary citations and does comply with Wikipedia's copyright regulations. I think that the article page could use more pictures in particular in the International section so that the user can get a glimpse at how Media literacy is approached, defined, and taught differently in other countries.

After reading through the Talk page, I found that the observations that I made were reiterated by Wiki writers. In the most recent post, for example, one Wiki writer agrees that the content of the article page is "well-balanced" and "neutral to Wikipedia's terms." However, this Wiki writer and many others note that it would be useful to add more substance to the International section of the Media literacy article. This Wiki writer suggests adding a brief summary of the Media literacy history in Hong Kong and in the Middle East as an example. Throughout the years, other Wiki editors have made contributions by fact-checking, updating citations, and pointing out areas of potential bias. I also checked the rating and found that it has a C rating and that the article is part of a Wiki project in the Education sector and within the scope of WikiProject Media.

Compared to what we have discussed in class, this Wikipedia article page comes off as very vague and broad. I expected there to be more information related to the "oppression" of algorithms, data-tracking, or even about media-related laws. However, it seems to me that Media Literacy is defined more closely to its relationship with Education. It would be interesting to see how the Wiki writer community would react if these additions were presented or discussed. I think it could have a positive impact as it allows media consumers to get a glimpse of media-specific language.

Overall, I think that this Wikipedia article provides substantial information but it still lacks more content in specific areas. As I mentioned above, this Wikipedia page should provide more detailed information rather than provide a "general" overview. I think it gets at the idea, but that does not enough for this topic. It would be great to see Wiki writers improve areas of research in the International section and reconstruct the content so it is accessible to the general reader.