User:Sarah4697/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Source credibility

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 of its relevance to communication, and its importance in evaluating research as a college student. Being able to understand the credibility a source holds in recognition to its sources and information presented is important, especially as I enter senior year and will begin working on a thesis. It matters because source credibility gives writers validity to their work. Without being able to back up claims, one's argument could be deemed incorrect, or not taken seriously.

My preliminary impression is that it seems thorough, and includes a lot of information to sift through. I like that it delves into various dimensions and areas of knowledge, including media, politics, popular culture, and a base theory.

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.)

Lead section: does define the topic, but uses it from an outside source; meaning it is quoted like "xxx". Should it be operationally defined and not be cited, or is it better to be cited? It however, does not include information about the upcoming sections. Rather it is a brief description. Information in the lead is cited throughout the article. It feels slightly overly detailed, but for such a broad topic I think it may be necessary.

Content: the content is relevant, but it could be updated, or at least current examples could be added. By looking at the sources, the latest year I could see was 2016, and nothing from the 2020's. So, there could be some updated information out there. I think the content in it is relevant and belongs. It does not relate to a historically underrepresented group; it is an idea, or topic, related to communication.

Tone and Balance: It is neutral and balanced, yes. I do not see anything biased, except for being slightly academically driven. It is more appealing to someone interested in learning a lot of information about the topic. I think the viewpoints are represented equitably. Some sections are shorter than others, but I think that is because of the topics themselves. No specific minority or infringed viewpoints that I took notice to. I do not think it aims to persuade. Rather inform about the topic.

Sources and References: Not every source is cited with a reference. I think there could be more sources added on, there are only 44. The do need updated, the most recent I could find was 2016. I think there could be more diverse authors added. Yes, there are better options and peer reviewed articles that could be added to add validity (and might I say, credibility), to this topic. Links work.

Organization: Sections are well written. Decent grammar. No large mistakes I see. Only one image and one graph- the graph could be credited better. Perhaps more visuals could be added.

Talk Page: No conversations going on. Only one comment that I could find. I think the topics in the article differ than those discussed in class by the context. In class we discuss it related to topics relevant to our lives or college research, this article discussion is in relation to a world of research and source credibility.

Overall: The overall status is well done, but there are technical things that need updated (sources, images, some grammar editing perhaps). It is well written and has lots of information, and is thorough. It could be improved by updating sources, and referencing more sources when citing something. I think it is well-developed for 5-10 years ago, but does need updated.