User:Seanaboy24/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Social media - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I have always been interested in social media platforms and I'm very familiar with certain applications based on my major, and the field I may be working in, post-graduation. This subject matters to me because social media is already extremely popular, but this medium is gaining more recognition with more social media applications being created. My preliminary impression of it was that it provides a solid overview of how people use social media in their daily lives and the various forms of it.

Evaluate the article
Lead section

The lead section includes an introductory sentence that concisely describes the article 's topic because it gives a brief but detailed description of social media. The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead section does not include information that is not present in the article. I think the lead is concise because it quickly describes what social media is and provides the needed context to achieve this.

Content

The article's content is relevant to the topic because it includes the history of social media, main definition and features of social media, the various forms and the usage of various applications. I think the content is up-to-date but there could be some more information from this past year. I think that most of the content belongs in their respective sections but in some sections there could be some more information. For example, in data compression, academia, and sleep disturbance there could be more information and details related to it. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and it does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

The article is neutral and it offers both sides of social media. There are not any claims that are heavily biased toward a particular position and they don't lean towards one side. The viewpoints are not overrepresented, nor underrepresented. Minority and fringe viewpoints are accurately described as such because the article is both fair and neutral. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position, one way or another because there is no bias.

Sources and References

All of the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. I think the sources are thorough and they reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources are current and relevant. The oldest source was from 2007 but this is still timely and needed for the development of the article. I'm not sure if the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors but it seems like there is a lot of diversity in their background. I don't see news coverage or random websites and it seems like there are a lot of peer-reviewed articles. The links work and are functioning as well.

Organization and writing quality

The article includes some images that enhance the understanding of the topic but the article could use more depictive pictures. Only some of the images are well-captioned because most of them are too short and not descriptive. All of the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. I think most of the images are laid out in a visually appealing way but they could be designed to be more appealing.

Talk page discussion

There is not much conversation going on in the talk page aside from a few suggestions from various students. The article is Rated C-class and it is a part of WikiProjects, as noted in the talk section of the article. The way Wikipedia discusses the topic does not differ from the way we talk about it in class because the talk page went through certain educational processes that we talk about.

Overall impressions

I think this article's overall status is well-written and it is provided with some great detail and information. The articles strengths are the various subtopics that it dives into throughout the entirety of the article. I think the sources are nicely integrated as well, and provide the article with background information that is much needed. The article can be improved by adding additional facts and information in specific sections that I mentioned earlier in this evaluation. I think the article is complete and developed in a solid way, but it can definitely use some improvement and additions. It is not underdeveloped or poorly developed because it entails and includes necessary information to the topic of social media.