User:Ninitasporseen/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.


 * Name of article: Problematic Social Media Use
 * This article describes implications and effects of social media use. The study of social media's impact on mental and relational health is emerging as social media use becomes increasingly more widespread.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed.

Lead evaluation
The opening sentence of the lead is concise and informative. However, the rest of the lead is quite long and includes information that might be better suited to its own content section, such as the description of the controversy surrounding the disorder's acceptance as a formal medical/psychological condition.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, it includes very recently published research (2019).
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No content that doesn't belong. And, as it's an emerging area of study, it's difficult to say whether there is missing content. This article likely requires frequent revisions and additions and studies emerge. However, what is included at present seems comprehensive.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No. Though, the article does cite research specific to how the proposed disorder uniquely manifests in men vs. women based on existing research.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content of this article addresses similar topic areas that would be covered in an article about a recognized disease or disorder, despite the research being limited in some areas. In those instances, the article points to what is known, and acknowledges limitations. This article would be an interesting one to watch as further studies are conducted and research published. I imagine it will undergo many adjustments as the topic is explored by scientists and researchers in this field.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
I was impressed by the neutrality of this article. The topic is fraught, as the article points out - controversy abounds. However, the article describes those controversies and divergent opinions, definitions, etc., without taking a side or trying to persuade the reader.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
This article has an incredible depth and breadth of credible research backing it up. The academic sources include a variety of voices from institutions around the world and research taking different angles of approach toward the topic at hand. The sources cited are current, including research published within the past year.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Organization evaluation
The article is generally well organized, making it easy to find the sub-sections of interest. Within some major sections, additional headers help to guide the reader. The writing throughout is concise. The long lead could possible be broken up and a new content area created. This particular article will likely require reorganization to some extent as research emerges.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes (sort of)
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No

Images and media evaluation
The article uses two images, one of which might help readers understand the topic or at least quickly grasp what it's referring to (an image of people using their smart devices while walking). The other is an image of a keyboard with icons of many social media platforms. The second image seems only peripherally related, and likely to become outdated quickly as social media platforms spring up and die out. Additionally, the images are different widths and don't look appealing stacked one on top of the other.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are a few conversations related to tightening up the naming and organization of one of the sections, as well as conversations about adding research to support findings from single studies with limited populations.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It was nominated as a "good" article but has not yet met the criteria. It is part of several WikiProjects, including Medicine, Psychology, and Internet Culture.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Some of the research this article describes aligns with concerns outlined in our readings, regarding the negative affects of cultural influence. However, the article is a much more neutral overview of research regarding mental health risks of social media overuse, rather than an argument for or against its use.

Talk page evaluation
The conversations on this article's talk page seem focused on refining and expanding its content, and finding ways to flesh out areas of interest as research emerges.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It hasn't met "Good Article" criteria but also doesn't have any warning banners.
 * What are the article's strengths? It cites many independent, varied, current sources. The first sentence of the lead sets the article up well. It is written with an impartial approach and even tone.
 * How can the article be improved? The information about controversy in the lead could be made into its own section.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is generally well developed, but will need to continue to be built out because the original research itself is not fully developed at this point.

Overall evaluation
Generally speaking, this article gives readers a working understanding of an emerging area of study, is organized and readable, and includes links to many helpful sources. The lead could be reorganized a bit, and the article may need to be altered as new research emerges and is added. As a reader, I found it neutral, informative, and compelling to read.

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: