User:Mtone098/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Misinformation - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
My reasoning for choosing the Misinformation Wikipedia page is simple: misinformation is more relevant in the public discourse in the present age than it has ever been, and as a part of communications, is entirely relevant to this class and project. It is vitally important that the very definition of misinformation provided on public and popular sources be accurate and correct in order to facilitate the aforementioned public discourse with any form of legitimacy. On my preliminary reading of the article my reaction was positive as the referencing appeared extensive, however, in my opinion the grammar and efficiency of the writing is not quite up to par with most of the more popular Wikipedia articles.

Lead Section

 * The lead sentence successfully and concisely conveys the essence of what misinformation is.
 * Unfortunately, the article doesn't mention social media in the lead section, which is a major part of the article and is of great contemporary importance.
 * Due to the extreme conciseness of the lead section, perhaps a little too concise, it does not convey any information which is not present in the article, however leaves out supplementary information to focus primarily on the other definitions of related definitions.
 * Uses a direct quote in the lead section rather than paraphrasing (seen as a negative).

Content

 * The article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * However, some of the content of the article is rather dated, and contains very few examples of misinformation within the last 5 years, and primarily focuses on research done many years prior.
 * In my opinion there should be reference to the factual events and misinformation campaigns run by both parties in the past 4 years as they have proven to be the most relevant example of misinformation with contemporary importance since the propaganda campaigns of WWII, however this is subjective and a sensitive topic for many. There is also a high likelihood of bias coming from editors, nonetheless it's an important and factual part of history.

Tone and Balance

 * The content matter provided is varied and neutral.
 * The article reads much like an essay, which is likely due to it being heavily edited by another student in a similar program as this (see talk page).
 * The article doesn't attempt to sway the reader in any particular direction.
 * The article also doesn't reference minority or fringe groups.

Sources and References

 * The article contains many references in comparison to many other Wikipedia articles.
 * All facts stated within the article are backed up by relevant sources.
 * The articles themselves are well chosen for the information the author intended to convey. This is likely the result of the aforementioned student editor who combed through and validated much of the content, as well as providing or rewriting some of the article.
 * The articles are all peer-reviewed and the majority were written within the last 10 years.
 * The several links that I clicked all worked, however a couple only listed their DOI and not a direct link itself.

Organization and Writing Quality

 * The writing style and organization of this article is quite akin to that of an essay, and can therefore come off as a more contrived reading experience.
 * The article is quite concise, and conveys the information it provides in an understandable and clear manner.
 * At several points the author uses odd phrasing, however this is again subjective to the reader.
 * While I don't believe this article is as all-encompassing as it could be, the topics covered are well defined and organized into a coherent structure.

Images and Media

 * There is only 1 image and no other forms of media associated with this article.
 * Within the talk section there has already been a request added for more media to be added to the article, as well as suggested images from other editors.

Talk Page Discussion

 * There are a few suggested edits made in the Talk page, but no real discourse.
 * There are multiple WikiProjects associated with this article.
 * The article is as of yet unrated and has no quality grade.

Overall Impressions

 * The overall status of this article is that as currently exists it serves as a good framework to be expanded into a truly all-encompassing resource for understanding misinformation.
 * The article correctly and adequately provides research for the topic.
 * However, the examples provided could be more contemporary, and the history of misinformation could be bolstered with many more pertinent examples (rather than focusing on the first known example of misinformation).
 * I believe this article is still under-developed, and could use more supplementary information to expand upon the existing article.