User:Scaryszary/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.


 * Name of article: Internet Meme
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article because it is a topic that interests me and I want to work on it so that people can understand what an internet meme really is.

Lead

 * Guiding question


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? For the most part - Marketing and Politics are in the contents however not mentioned in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but some of the Lead is redundant and there are some things that can be removed / added.

Content

 * Guiding question


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, it is relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, but still needs work
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Missing content in copyright protection in other countries or states. Also do not think there should be a whole written subsection to Pepe The Frog, since he already has a main page.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It currently does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics, however I do not believe this has any relevance to the "internet meme" topic, since internet memes are typically viewed as universal.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding question


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? One claim I noticed was about David Cameron in the politics tab. I'll have to do some research but it seemed biased against him.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not any at the moment.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Generally no, however in the political section there are lots of examples about republican politicians using memes.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, however I do believe something like this topic (Internet Meme) it is up to the person's interpretation to understand internet memes in general. I also do not know if there many credible sources out there explaining what an internet meme really is.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, most sources are sources are either op-ed pieces or not any credible sources,
 * Are the sources current? No, most sources are very old and archived.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not really, a lot comes from WIRED, New York Times, or Know Your Meme. They do not include Historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is easy to read but is still missing some substance. The beginning part is concise but further on in the article everything seems either misplaced or there is too much info.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some run on sentences, some missing quotations and citing errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Everything is in the proper spot where it should be, however, there are some parts that feel like they need to be either revamped or taken out.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the article does include a few images of internet memes that allows the reader to understand what an Internet Meme is.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes except for one, that seems out of place (See Dank Meme)
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, no problems.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, all of them are properly formatted

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? One of the conversations is about including different meme choices other than the ones already present on the page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is listed as a level-5 vital article in Technology, rated as a C-Class. It is also of interest in several WikiProjects: Internet Culture, Internet, and Comedy
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? (Not sure what this question is asking since we haven't talked about this specific topic in class yet)

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Overall, I think its at a C Status. It is substantial enough but contains a lot of irrelevant material along with not reliable sources.
 * What are the article's strengths? It accurately explains what an "internet meme" is so that if someone did not have access to the internet, they would be able to understand what it is.
 * How can the article be improved? It covers the basics but doesn't fully encapsulate every detail about internet memes, I think I would need to improve on the history and evolution of internet memes
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is severely underdeveloped at the moment, and I hope to improve on it this semester.

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: