User:Omar Yacoub 2020/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Hashtag

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am just impressed with the power of Hashtags, and the changes they can make when the number of the specific Hashtags go viral. My first impression of this page is that it does not meet my expectations when I want to find out more about the meaning of a Hashtag.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section is well structured and written in terms of providing an introduction, a quick overview, examples, and the history. I believe the lead is concise according to the depth of Hashtag; it offers details that are necessary for a reader who want an overall overview.

Content

The content is good, however, there are a few issues. First, some sections are given way bigger space while others are only explained in two lines. Second, The example of the Hashtag they give in the beginning is not up-to-date as it goes back to 2014. Third, even though the section of "function" includes some of the most popular and powerful Hashtags, it would have been much easier for me, as a reader, to see a designated section for popular hashtags.

'''Tone and Balance '''The article is very neutral and does not push for a specific opinion. However, this neutrality leads a plethora of claims such as "Hashtags are" which may push for a specific understanding of the meanings and functions of Hashtags.

Sources and References

Most and the sources are websites not peer reviewed journals. This makes me a little hesitant to take facts from this page. This also makes most of the claims in this page weak.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is well written, organized, and structured. My comment is that sometimes paragraphs are not clearly separated under some sections.

Images and Media

I mages are laid out in a visually nice way for readers. It is just that some of these images are from years ago. It is fine, but there should be an up=to=date image as well.

Talk Page Discussions

It is rated as a level 5 vital article. Some of the discussion in the Talk Page are really helpful for those who want to edit the article. They criticize very specific aspects like definition and examples.

Overall Impression

The article does provide valuable information about Hashtag as a concept. The definition is not that basic for anyone who is totally unfamiliar with the concept to easily understand it. The article is organized into sections with inconsistency of the amount of information in every section. My major criticism, after all, is about the the references that are mostly from websites. Very few references, out of 80, are from peer reviewed journals. I believe this article has the necessary information, but just needs more organization and needs more support from articles by peer reviewed journals.

Comments from Dr. Vetter
Hello, thanks for posting your evaluation of this article. You have a great start here. I agree that academic sources would make this article more credible, but remember that academic articles can sometimes be a bit too specialized to add content to Wikipedia, so books, textbooks, and academic REVIEWS are sometimes more appropriate as they show consensus among many academics/experts. Anyway - yes definitely looking at some more academic/print sources for adding content would be useful here. I am very interested in the "Functions" section as I think that aspect of the subject relates most to rhetoric. You write about how you think the article needs more organization, and I think this would be a great start. You could add 3-4 subsections using the sub-heading 1 function in the visual editor to categorize some of this content more fully, and also add some concepts/functions more related to rhetoric.

Hope this is helpful feedback - Let me know what follow-up questions you have.

Really nice job overall!

DarthVetter (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)