User:MooreOrLess31/Evaluate an Article

User:MooreOrLess31/Evaluate an Article
Article evaluation:

Evaluation of Content:
 * Name of article: Online Community - Online community
 * I have decided to chose this article due to the fact that I am a Communication Studies Major, and have chosen a focused route that enable me to look at communities that allow for all type of information t be conveyed. Thus, I feel as though that by looking deeper into the "online Community", updating and increasing the new/better knowledge that could possibly be found from trusted resources, and also established a better represented page of the topic, has led me to chose this article.


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Can you identify any notable equality gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations?
 * What else could be provided?

Evaluating Tone


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Evaluating Sources


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims of the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Do the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications?

Checking the Talk Page


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Optional-->


 * 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 — ~.
 * NOTE: Once you've completed this exercise, be sure to click Mark Complete from your course page Home tab.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentence does not meet the overall requirements and composition of integrating a definition and concise description of the article. the mentioning of "family of invisible friends" embarks on the verge of attempting to include aspects of invisibility through the internet. Which, does not necessarily define an "Online Community".
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The introduction 'paragraph' for the topic describes various means of social communication sites that can be used to create groups or 'communities', but it also mentions being an 'information system' that does aid in the understanding of the topic and its multiple definitions or functionalities.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * the lead or introduction does not includes the sections of the topics' site that mentions the motivations of these 'sites communities', the functionality of the consumer/vendor integration of the communities, and legalities that could be included into the lead as well.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The forfeits the detailedness of the topic to become a more 'concise' and or simple-styled opening. There could've been more of an integration or mentioning of the information that is included within the topics page, rather than trying to continuously define the topic.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The simple answer to this question is yes, the content that is included on the page is relevant to the topic in the sense that there are explanations that aid in attempting to understand what 'online' and 'community' menu. As well as how individuals communicate with each other and the world in today's society.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Many of the statistics mentioned throughout the document are from the years of 2013-2017 [see "Social Networks", "Popularity", "Newcomers (inbound)", etc], not many from recent years or [on occasion] where the information is coming from. The percentages that are also used throughout the page are only to emphasis a particular point or statement, not to provide feedback or reasonings as to why the information should be included.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content that is included in "Roles in an Online Community" is very brief and the terms are not recognized as the average or regularly termed individuals in the community. Additionally, the information is not necessarily needed, seeing that defining the people participating in the discussions on various social sites is not necessarily what makes up an Online Community. There is also proven psychological aspect as to why people 'participate' in communities or even online formats, but this type of information is not included in this page. The section labeled "Motivations and Barriers to Participation" addresses 'followers' and 'leaders' in these social forums, but again, not truly why these individuals are including information or addressing topics with others online.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Under the title "Problems" there is information that explains how online communities "are rather new and unexplored areas" this statement is not necessarily true as online communities and subsequently online communities have been used for many years now- and as started before, there is not a lot of recent data or information included. Thus there is an underrepresentation to the importance of these online communities, especially in reference to the necessity of the forums. The included information also demonstrates that there is a neutral stance on the basis of gender equalization from the extended individuals who have included the information present.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article looks to define the 'online community' through the basis of analyzing representations of what a community might include [people, groups of interested individuals, those who just wish to communicate with others, those that want to share their knowledge, etc.] as well as where the growth of 'online' opportunities lie in the resolve if upgraded technology.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are several subtopics that include a heavy resolve of grouping users that participate in online chats as being users, and 'lurkers'. In some instances, those are the only two concepts or labels that a person may be called, and I find that to be proven wrong in terms of the possibilities of communication from all kinds of people today- as well as this information has been proven false by academic sources later to be mentioned.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are viewpoints that are underrepresented, such as "Online Health Communities", where the information present is simplified and concise though there could be much to add to the subtopic, especially if information of virtual doctor visits were to be added. The other subtopic that is underrepresented is that of "Hazing" is also concise and simplified to the point where the information is labeled as a 'lesser known problem' facing online communities. As many other sources are concerned, there has been studies that identify Hazing as being a huge issue and problem for both in-person and online formats. There is also several subtopics that are overrepresented such as with the cases of defining several identities of the personnel that take part in these so called 'social chat forums' ["Roles in an Online Community"].
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, I did not find points that truly attempted tp persuade its readers towards a specific point of view or to create a specific stance that individuals should take towards an Online Community. I believe that at times there are more definitions that are not truly needed, but are given and that provides more of an emphasis of the inclusion of knowledge rather than of a formalized position of the topic.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most of the facts, if even all, are connected and labeled as to where the information came from, what source was used in comparison to the knowledge used, and also how one might be able to find the research, source, etc. and where one could also access it.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Although the information included in and throughout the article does included connected sources to showcase truth in the information- but this sources was from a certain time period, and as such the most recent of the information stops art 2017. Thus, although the information might've been true in the past there is a good chance that things have been updates, changed or evolved with the current years.
 * Are the sources current?
 * When going through and sorting the oven sources provided on the "Online Community" page, I was surprised to find that the most recent source depicted was from 201, and the earlier was known to be 1996. Where having sources that early is helpful to distinguish how things online have changed and the impact that regards the knowledge at that time, the information needs to have not updated information included and sources from times or years that are more recent than 2017. Even from the "Further Readings" section that is included at the base of the article there are no recent dates that regard anything after 2017.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * There are various individuals [authors, bloggers, etc.] that are included or have their information included throughout this article. This information stems from particular definitions of the role of online communities, the roles of chats and social sites, and even the roles of the individuals as to why they choose to participate. Again, it seems that many times the information included is strategic in a sense that it is utilized to distinguish or prove a particular part- thus, it is used for a purpose or reason.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * It seems that although many of the links could have been edited a while ago or added from many years ago, most of the links are still working well and proficiently. The links to particular books, or websites that host articles of their own provision- do work and are able to be given immediately upon clicking the links. Other links that are used to provide DOI numbers, titles of books, authors or sites, and also links that are used to create a definition of a term are also still working.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article seems to demonstrate an organized and well-structured format, having both bullet points to emphasis a structure and also many subtopics that help to distinguish information. This format makes the information easy to read and easy to find the definitions of concepts that might not have been well-known by readers or viewers.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * To the best of my knowledge, the editors or authors of the included information did a good job of watching spelling and grammatical errors that might have been overlooked prior to being added to the "Online Community" article. If there is an error, it is from an emphasis of information that has already been talked about various points in various subtopics, or an extended space where there should not have been one.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article has subtopics, bullet points, included sections and devisions that point to major subtopics, and major points that are emphasized throughout the article. Because this article is broken down as such, it appears very well-structured and does not seemingly 'stress out' viewers and readers at first look into then information.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions- There is one images in the discussed article and as such, these questions are intended to evaluate just this one image.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, there are truly no images, depictions of the percentages included, or even 'fun' pops of color within this article that would help to establish a better understanding of the topic discussed. It is very heavily just information-based, ad information discussed in the entirety of the article. Yet, there is one image that is included but it is a screenshot of the discussed "newly installed version of IPB 3.4.6".
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Again, there are no images included in this article, except for one image to provide and understanding of a new kind of installation for a program or forum. Thus, there is no need for captions or description of the images itself other than a title.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no images in the "Online Community" Wikipedia article that truly emphasize the understanding of the topic, yet there is a selected image of a screenshot of a newly installed software for the time period mentioned in the subtopic. The evaluation of a presentable Wikipedia Copyright Regulation has not been crossed or interfered with on the basis of using this image in the article.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The only image used in this article is one to again, just add an understanding to the information mentioned in the subtopic, so it is not so much visually appealing as it is to just share a better understating of the new software.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The behind of the scenes of this article depicts the editors and individuals that added information as being very formal and accepting of the new information. Each person either "thanks" others for their views or added knowledge of the subject area or they add their information and explain why is was added in the first place.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Yes, this article has been found to be part of several WikiProjects, including: "WikiProject Computing", "WikiProject Community", "WikiProject Internet", and "WikiProject Internet Culture". In addition to the use of the article as being of usages to WikiProjects, there have been other cases of student assigned editors, other than myself. This article is highly rated as has been the subject of two Wiki-Foundations in a prior use.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * In class the topics of integration of new technology, the instances of the importances of the internet throughout history and having access to inline forums is discussed also in the 'task page' and throughout this article in its entirety.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The status of this article is overall well-maintinced or organized, but not well updated or edited to include the underrepresented information.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article has strengths in the inclusion of secondary sources, background definition of the information, and also the depth of the history of the online community.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article needs a major update in terms of sources and the 'latest' information about the online community and online forums, and how they both help to increase communication and also demonstrate a stonier connection to the newest forms of technology today. The article also needs to be edited to depict what is underrepresented and over represented. Possibly also have images included throughout the article to make it more fun to look at and to aid in better understanding [for those who are more of visual learners rather than just reading about the acknowledged information].
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say that although the article is well-organized and on it's way of being well-developed, the fact of missing updated information and missing sources of new or recent years- the article is, in a way, stuck from developing further. In a sense, the article is underdeveloped dir to the missing update knowledge that could be provided on the selected topic.

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: