User:Mdivestea/Evaluate an Article

See Evaluation Below.

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_African_Americans_in_media

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it covers a topic we discuss in class. This topic matters because it affects our understanding of the media. This article overall was thorough and heavily discussed/edited. Mdivestea (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes it is distinct and separate from the rest of the article.


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

There is a hyperlinked guide to get to the sections you would like to read.


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

No, all information is included.


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It is concise.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, it provides numerous examples.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

It is mostly up to date. The talk page was last active in January of 2022.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There does not appear to be any missing or misplaced content.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, the article covers African Americans and their representation in the media.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?

It appears to be neutral, covering factual examples of representation I the media.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The position is leans more toward the view that African Americans were presented poorly in the media.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

It seems to be balanced.


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

There are some minority viewpoints but they are not fully cited.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

It appears to express that African Americans have been portrayed negatively in media through factual evidence.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Some citations are missing.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Some sources are incomplete.


 * Are the sources current?

They are current in relation to the topic covered.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

It is unclear if the authors were from marginalized backgrounds, however, it is clear many authors have contributed.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Yes, some of the sources in this article are incomplete and could be replaced b higher quality ones.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, the links are working.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

There are some segments that could be improved.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Spelling and grammar was mostly correct.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, there are organized sections.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

There are no images included.


 * Are images well-captioned?

No images were included.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

The article did not contain images.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

This article did not display any images.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There were comments that addressed bias in the article.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is not rated. It is a part of two WikiProjects.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

It does not significantly differ from our class exploration.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?

It is an established article on Wikipedia.


 * What are the article's strengths?

It contains many factual, historical examples.


 * How can the article be improved?

Better citations and writing could improve this article.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article is developed but could use a little bit more work.