User:Sa536.22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Media literacy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it focuses on media literacy and media literacy education, which are the two focal points driving the essential questions of my course. The topic matters because media literacy skills and education are important and useful in today's increasingly digital world. My preliminary impression of the article was that it was informative about media literacy education and included relevant information to the topic.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section - succinct, not overly detailed, and short (1 paragraph). It defines the topic in the first sentence and provides a brief overview in the rest of the paragraph. This section does not include any information that is not elsewhere in the article and it briefly touches on each major article section.

Content - the content of the article is relevant to the topic and appears to be up-to-date, evidenced by the inclusion of media literacy as it relates to Covid-19. There is not any content that appears to be missing/irrelevant. However, there is a quote that is repeated in two sections which reads as redundant and could use editing/better paraphrasing to fix.

Tone & Balance - the article reads from a neutral point of view. Multiple scholars, approaches, research, and global histories/applications from various countries are presented. However, at one point the article mentions proponents of media literacy education but never address whether there are those opposed to it. Additionally, while the content overall is balanced in regard to article sections, the last section is unbalanced. Subsections on the Middle East and Australia are significantly smaller sections than the other regions.

Sources & References - most facts appear to be backed by reliable sources and all the links I checked are active. Some of the references could use more citation information in the footnote as they only contain a hyperlink. Most references are dated between 2005-2020, indicating relatively up-to-date references/sources. The sources are also diverse, evidenced by the inclusion of sources in multiple languages, published in multiple countries, and focused on diverse topics relating to media literacy.

Organization & Writing Quality - the organization of the article is logical. However, there are a few grammatical errors and/or types. For example: missing end quotation marks, a comma instead of a period.

Images & Media - there is only one image. It does abide by Wikipedia's regulations and includes a caption. However, it doesn't really serve much of a purpose because it doesn't add to the article. The article would be just as effective without it.

Talk Page - the article is part of two WikiProjects: one for Education and is rated as C-Class and high-importance, the other for Media and rated as C-Class and top-importance. Most of the discussion revolves around edits (adding sections, copy-editing, clarifying acronyms, etc.). There is also talk about reference links not working and people providing complete citations for the footnotes. The most recent Talk additions discuss adding more information under the Middle East subsection and merging the article to another related article.

Overall impressions - the article has many strengths: facts are based on reliable and diverse sources, tone is mostly neutral and content mainly balanced throughout, sections flow logically, organization and syntax are logical. However, there are a few weaknesses: some typos, some viewpoints not represented, limited images/media, some missing citation information. To improve the article, more relevant images could be added, more information should be added to footnote citations, quick editing to catch typos/grammatical errors, and more research to counter one-sided or unsubstantial sections. The article appears relatively well-developed despite it's weaknesses because most of the issues/weaknesses are relatively minor or easily fixed.