User:Schoe043/be bold

Being bold is important on Wikipedia. This is a practice edit. 'I want to bold this item, and italicize this part.'' This part is very important. '''

New Section
Being bold is important on Wikipedia. Here is another change.


 * Hi! Can you give me any advice for improving this article?--Schoe043 (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

= Article Evaluation: FCC fairness doctrine=

Evaluating content
I think everything included in the article was relevant. However, I was a little confused by the "Formal revocation" section stating that the FCC removed the Fairness Doctrine in 2011, when it was stated that FCC had voted to abolish the doctrine in 1987 and the corollary rules were repealed in 2000. I think it should be stated more clearly that while the Doctrine was no longer in effect, it was to officially takeit off the books.

I think the "Reinstatement considered" section could also be better worded such that it does not appear as if this is a partisan issue because it is not. The way the information is currently presented, it seems as if the Democrats support the Fairness Doctrine and Republicans oppose it, but as you read further down, it's stated that President Obama did not support the Doctrine.

Lastly, the article could have better addressed the chilling effect that the Doctrine had on news coverage of controversial subjects; news station simply chose not to talk about controversial issues. They do have one sentence and a large block quote, but the formatting could be better such that a reader would better understand the consequences.

Evaluating tone
The article is fairly neutral. There is one part that could be slightly problematic and that is the "Public opinion" section. This section is about public opinion regarding the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, but it only includes one poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports. There have been criticisms against Rasmussen Reports for sampling bias that is conservative-leaning, so it could be helpful to include more polls on the Fairness Doctrine if possible.

Evaluating sources
At least three of the sources that I clicked on were no longer valid links (42, 60, and 64).

In addition, some of the sources are a bit dubious. The Washington Times is cited twice, but the newspaper has been accused of being biased and has been associated with white supremacy. This is not noted on the page.

However, most sources have a relevant and reliable reference.

Checking the talk page
It doesn't look like this talk page has been very active since 2009. However, when the talk page was more active, it looks like there were a lot of issues of bias when writing this article. The article was designated a C-class with a completeness score of 69. It is associated with WikiProject Law, Conservatism, United States/Government/Public Policy, and Radio. This Wikipedia article discusses this topic differently by not really addressing questions like: What were the consequences of the Fairness Doctrine on news coverage? Rather this article provides a lot of primary source quotes, as mentioned in one of the comments on the talk page, but does not provide any analysis.