User:OwensGK/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.


 * Two-step flow of communication
 * I have chosen this article because it relates to the topics discussed in week three regarding behaviourism and media effects.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead has an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes what two-step flow communication is. The Lead also contains a Contents section that breaks down what the article will include, but it does not give brief descriptions of what the articles major sections are about. The Lead does not contain any information that is not present in the article. It is concise and only includes a definition of what the topic is, a contrasting definition, and a description of how the process works.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The articles content is relevant to the topic as it only discusses the two-step flow of communication and ideas, debate, or work about the topic. The page is up to date because it was last edited on the 13th of September 2020. All of the topics discussed on the page are listed in the Content section and there is nothing that does not belong. It does not deal with an equity gap or address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral because it does not take any sides. There are no claims that seem to be heavily biased towards a particular position because it presents readers with an explanation about the theory as well as critics of the theory. The article does not try and persuade the readers in favour of agreeing or disagreeing with the theory.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


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

Sources and references evaluation
All of the facts within the article are backed up by reliable sources. The sources are thorough and extensive as there are 22 links within the resource section. The sources range from 1940-2020 which means that some sources are more current than others. This also means that the authors come from different time periods which shows that there is a diverse spectrum of authors. After checking a few links, I can see that they do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is well written and easy to read. It does not have any noticeable grammar or spelling errors. It is organized well and easy to follow.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The article only includes one image and it is of the Two-Step Flow of Communication Model. It is properly captioned and adhere's to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The image enhances the article and it is displayed in a visually appealing way.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There are no active conversations on the talk page of this article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is well done. It is concise and easy to read and informs the readers about a brief explanation and history about the model. To improve, it could be expanded upon to involve even more information. The article is well developed, but there could be more added to it and if more editors contributed talk page, perhaps more could be accomplished.

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: