User:Narmstrong1010/Evaluate an Article

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.


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

No.


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

Yes.


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I thought the first paragraph was concise, but the second paragraph introduced government censorship in Asia and media ownership as a two-pronged issues to media bias. It felt disjointed.

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?

Some of it. The topics covered are diverse, and varied in coverage and attention give in the article.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

It's mixed: the polling data regarding social media is recent, but the polling data regarding people's views on the media is over 20 years old.


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

The section regarding scholarly treatment in the US and UK is not necessary, or at least not to the degree it's analyzed.


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

No.

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 from a neutral point of view?

In some ways, no. There are too many declarative sentences that require citation.


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

The argument from some quarters regarding Anglophone bias seems to be supported in some paragraphs examining viewpoints of newswires.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The scholarly treatment is overly represented. While Asia is mention in the lead section, there body of the article focuses primarily on the West (US/UK).


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

No fringe viewpoints are represented.


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

It attempts to cast British news sources, and the English language, as heavily biased.

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?

No. Some claims have no citations.


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

Yes.


 * Are the sources current?

Some are a few years old, and some sources are 10 to 20 years, or more, years old.


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

I believe so -- 97 sources. Newer sources with more updated information would benefit this article.


 * 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.)

With social media and citizen journalism gaining traction and legitimacy as news sources, a renewed effort to search academic journals would help this article. Here's an article published earlier in 2021 that accounts for the ever changing world. Litovsky, Y. (2021). (Mis)perception of bias in print media: How depth of content evaluation affects the perception of hostile bias in an objective news report. PLoS ONE, 16(5), 1–15. https://doi-org.gonzaga.idm.oclc.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251355


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes.

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?

The article is not entirely concise. There needs to be some edits - revising some wording and excising what's not needed. The lead section needs another round of revisions to better reflect the body of the article.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No.


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

The various sections need some work; all topics don't fit together and detracts from the flow of the article.

Images and Media

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

No.


 * Are images well-captioned?

N/A.


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

N/A.


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

N/A.

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?

It's strongly advised the article not focus on regions, in particular, the Arab-Israeli conflict.


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

C Class, two projects: journalism and philosophy/logic.


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

It makes claims that aren't cited. It is specific in certain regions/cultures, and doesn't have a very macro view of the large, complicated issue.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?

It needs work.


 * What are the article's strengths?

There are a lot of scholarly works cited.


 * How can the article be improved?

It needs a clear structure, and no meander to varied topics that aren't linked to other topics covered.


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

Underdeveloped.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

The article focuses too heavily on scholarly feedback.

Which article are you evaluating?
Media bias

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am studying communications, I'm very interested in the role social media plays, and I thought the broad subject "media bias" would have interesting analysis that would complement my communications interest.

Evaluate the article
This article is not focused. The topics covered are varied, and there are too many declarative statements with no citations. This article is region specific in criticisms and slanted citations regarding: Anglo/US/UK bias, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and a mention of censorship in Asia with no real follow up. This article would benefit from an outline before writing, revising, and rewriting it.