User:Mdenham.uri/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Media literacy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it is the topic of our course and it would be beneficial to see what research and information on media literacy and media literacy education is being presented through Wikipedia. It matters because media literacy skills and education are becoming more and more of a necessity in today's digital age, but not many people are familiar with the concept of media literacy. My preliminary impression was that the article has a good lead and definition of what media literacy is but the majority of the article's substance is about media literacy education, which I would believe would be a subset/similar category but not exactly an in-depth description on what media literacy itself entails.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of this article clearly defines the topic and provides an overview of the topic and major sections of the article. The lead is concise and a reader who wants a brief overview can get the basic understanding of the topic. The content appears to be up-to-date, along with the references, and the content addressed in this article is relevant to the overarching topic and subtopics. The content that I would say is missing from the article is a more in-depth section about media literacy as a whole and what is encompasses, which could be included prior to jumping into the section on media literacy education. For tone and balance, the article appears neutral and uses various reliable sources to cite information. There are no obvious biases from authors/editors and the article appears to provide definitions and key takeaways from various sources on this topic, rather than someone's viewpoint. Most of the sources are current from the last decade, but some links (for example, reference 5) are no longer working or linking to the source/website that was cited. (Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. The article is organized by the table of contents and the writing is clear and professionally written. It is easy to read for most users because it is written for someone new to the topic. There are some media literacy related terms which may require further research for those who are new to this topic, such as "inquiry-based pedagogic model". The article is broken down into sections that make the content of each subtopic's theme and purpose clear. There are not any images used in the article besides the cover photo/first page of a cited research article's PDF and clicking the photo brings you to that PDF. The article's talk page provides a lot of helpful context on the behind-the-scenes of the article, such as what WikiProject sections the article is included in, who has been editing the article, a to-do list for fact-checking and citation checking, and a feedback area, and a clean-up plan. In the feedback area, someone mentioned the article previously seemed to be biased or persuasive, so this has now been fixed to make the article more subjective and factual. The talk page has a layout that is helpful to see what discussions are happening about what areas of the main article. My overall impression of this article is that it is well-written and heavily cited with reliable sources, which are an important strength. One way to improve the article could be to add a section with more detail on media literacy itself, before diving into subcategories. The article is well-developed, especially because it is part of an Education-based WikiProject, but could use a few minor additions.