User:Palmervaldez/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Media bias in the United States

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because media bias in the US is a prominent topic in our class and I think that in this modern era of social media and news outlets that bias is at an all-time high. This matters because no matter what media outlet you use, there is always a bias behind the information being relayed by the platform. My preliminary impression of the article was really how there is a two side bias to the news(Conservative or Liberal) and this article goes more in-depth on all the varying and different biases from media.

I chose this article because growing up, I felt as though the chaos surrounding the news had only increased and become a rising topic. This article is an opportunity to clarify, learn, and grow to understand the effects that our media has on us, and understand the concept that there is not a single media outlet that is unbiased. The striking impression this article has given me is the deep history of news and media,

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section does a great job of stating the obvious considering the polarization of the media outlets, but also identifies the watchdog groups that fact-check information from these outlets and the use of political agendas from outlets. Overall, I would say the opening of the article has all the right information without over-informing.

After reading the article, the information stated is up-to-date and relevant to the topic especially when reading through the History section. The content is interesting because it highlights the trust between citizens and media entering a decline marked in 1997. The facts and data presented are all historically accurate and utilize examples from different presidential candidacies.

After reading the article, I would say the article takes a very middle stance when it comes to bias, and there aren't any unincluded viewpoints or stances. There isn't any obvious persuasion from the article to force the reader to lean one way or the other.

There is a copious amount of references and sources listed throughout the article to help connect information and back up information. Not to mention, the high amount of variance in working references throughout the article that are up to date.

The article is relatively organized, but at some point, it feels that there is too much information around too many topics. I think it would be better to focus harder on fewer topics and allow the article to focus and make stronger, more organized points. Overall, not super easy to read, but very clear on the points being made. On the other hand, the article is grammatically correct.

There are quite a few charts that are scattered throughout the article, and the charts are labeled, however, it feels they are sparse throughout the article and could be more on display. I wouldn't say that the charts are visually appealing, but relay the information effectively.

The article creates discussion mostly about political agendas and media outlets putting a unique twist to their information. The article is in the C class and is tied to the following Wikiprojects: Media, Journalism, United States, Conservatism, and Politics: American. The difference between how we talk about this project and WIki does is there is an acknowledgment of the threat of media to American democracy.

Overall, the article was pretty accurately rated, specifically when it came to the mix of information and sources. While it is very informational, with fair amounts of sources to verify information throughout American media history. In my opinion, the article's strengths stem from the history of the effect of political media in America. I would say that the article could be a little more concise and place a higher focus on political agendas, which is just a personal favorite of mine. Overall, I would say the article is overall competent with resources, amount of information, and variance in information.

Palmer:

After reading this article, I thought the lead section did a nice job of clarifying and briefing the audience concisely and clearly/.

Data and information throughout this article are updated with the times while providing clear data points where relationships between media and the audience have had their highs and lows, as well as mentioning the importance of agendas. This wiki article definitely doesn't feel biased in one direction or another but serves as an opportunity for the article to simply educate, not to mention the large amounts of references, sources, and citations that emphasize the backbone of this article.

While the article does have a plethora of information, I would say there is a large lack in the organization of the article. I often feel like I am jumping across the page finding connection points, not to mention the article doesn't feel streamlined. With that being said, the article is grammatically correct.

Overall, this article is in my opinion a C tier article, but has so much room to improve in the aspects of organization. The quality of the information throughout the article is extremely useful, however there is a lack of organization which could be a great foundation for all of the information to rest.