User:Mswiki729/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.

Misinformation

I've decided to edit the 'Misinformation' wikipedia article. The reason I chose this article primarily was because the topic interested me. The article is labeled s-class, meaning there is some preliminary information but plenty of room for improvement. The part that struck me most about the page is the lack of information on the causes of misinformation. The article has not undergone much editing in the past few years, when I feel like now more than ever, the cause and effects of misinformation are prevalent in studies and society. Some of the information under social media seems out to date. Especially when examining political events in both the USA and UK, misinformation have been major players in our societies within the past few years, and I feel as though this information can be updated to be included.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead includes an introductory sentence that is concise, but is followed by a confusing comparison of misinformation and disinformation. It would be more clear to focus on exactly what misinformation is before comparing or describing what disinformation is. The Lead does not give a brief description of the article's major sections, rather just focuses on the comparison between misinformation vs disinformation, which doesn't flow nicely into the next description of the history of the word. The Lead also includes references to how pranks or news parody can become misinformation, but does not go into more detail or provide examples in the rest of the page. All in all, the Lead is concise, but with the wrong information and is missing several key elements needed for a cohesive and complete Lead.

Content

 * The article's content is relevant to the topic, but could be more detailed and provide more in depth information on the creation and then spread of misinformation. The article's content is somewhat up to date. Some information cited is from 2019, whereas other information is from 2015. It will be important to determine the accuracy of information that is from five years ago, and compare it to the information we now have available in 2020.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is neutral. When discussing political events and various events where misinformation was spread, the article upholds an overall neutral tone. None of the claims appear heavily biased towards any specific viewpoint. When it comes to misinformation, there is really no position where it can be seen as a positive. The act of spreading misinformation is not something to be celebrated or encouraged, so I do not think that any viewpoint is being over or under represented. Nor does the article attempt to persuade the reader to favor or dislike misinformation, but is instead just exampling the negative effects misinformation produces.

Sources and References


All of the facts in the article do have reliable and properly cited sources of information. All of the sources in the article come from either published journals or books, so it is easy to verify that the information is accurate. The sources are thorough as well, many of them including the term misinformation in the title of the journal article. This means they had to undergo review and are when cited within the Wikipedia article include no bias. The sources appear to range anywhere from the last decade when the term misinformation really became a term that people became familiar with and began to study/write about. The sources I clicked do work, and bring me directly to where I can access the source.

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The organization could use some editing. The subheadings under the social media heading can be renamed to be more concise rather than directly pulled from the exact situation being discussed. There were no grammatical or spelling errors I came across when viewing the article. As previously mentioned, I believe the subheadings can be better organized to reflect the main topics being discussed under each heading.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * The article does not include any images.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is rated s-class meaning that there is still significant changes that can be made. The talk page is not super active, but was subject of the Wiki Ed course assignment, between October 2019 and December 2019. Wikipedia definitely gives a less opinionated, neutral view to the discussion of misinformation. In class discussions, it is easy to become opinionated and heated about the topic.

Overall impressions
The articles status is s-class. The strengths are the solid references that are cited, but what can be improved is the organization and flow of the article. I would assess the article's completeness as underdeveloped, but with some editing and reorganizing can become a more cohesive and easy to understand article.