User:Schwammy1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Here is the link to the article that I will be evaluating: Women in journalism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I've chosen this article to evaluate because I am a firm believer and advocate for increased representation amongst women in the media industry. Being a Digital Media Production major with high aspirations to succeed as a filmmaker in Hollywood, I care deeply about equal representation within this industry. I was raised in a household that pushed me to follow my dreams and not let anything get in the way of accomplishing my goals, and I think that anyone with creative ideas has the opportunity to express themselves and share stories that they find impactful.

Lead section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Although the introductory sentence is concise, is isn't very clear. The article simply defines "women in journalism", but uses the word within the definition, making it ineffective and not an enticing opening sentence that explains the article more generally.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content appears to be relatively up to date as it seems most of the information is from 2017 - 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, all of the content in the article is very relevant and supports the statements made in the Lead section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, it is addressing women, who are widely underrepresented in media and have been historically.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral?
 * No, this article seems to favor the argument that women have been underrepresented in the media industry, and continue to be.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they do.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources appear to be pretty much up to date, but newer information can be beneficial. The information is coming from sources from between 2017 - 2019.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * I did not find any peer-reviewed sources in my search through this article. I found a lot of links to other Wiki articles and others with links redirecting to website articles.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links work.

Organization and writing quality

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is a quick, easy, and engaging read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes the article is broken down into well-organized sections. It is broken down into three major sections: "Currently", "Safety", and "By Country". Each section is also broken down into more organized subcategories.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article does include useful images of historically notable women in media. However, I believe the article can benefit from more infographics/statistical graphics and images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Talk page discussion

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Conversations on the talk page appear to be a fairly heated debate about the article's bias. There are also a few comments stating that the article has more to do with pointing out notable women in the history of journalism, rather than dressing the topic more generally, leaving out a conversation about the evolution of women in journalism.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is part of WikiProjects, with ratings ranging from mid to low importance in the categories of journalism, media, and lists. It also shows high importance ratings in the categories of women's history and women writers.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't yet talked about women representation in the media industry, their impact, and the evolution and history of their roles in media.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's overall status seems
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's main strength's are its organization and well-written language (lack of grammar and spelling errors).
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by giving a lot more attention to the Lead section and crafting a better introductory paragraph.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * After evaluating this article, I have come to the conclusion that the article is poorly developed, but can be improved with a stronger Lead section, more impactful images, a few more statistics, and a better descriptive identity.