User:SingingSinatra4/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 celebrity
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I've become really curious about social media in the past several months as quarantine has really allowed me to feel its effects. The idea of social media celebrities is still a relatively new concept that I wanted to learn and understand more about.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the article does include a sentence describing what an internet celebrity is, however, the rest of the paragraph falls a little short. The description does not really go into what the article includes, more so it just elaborates on what an internet celebrity is and what platforms you can find them. It talks about Instagram mainly, which the rest of the article doesn't really elaborate on. I feel that it is a bit too concise and lacks information that can summarize the article in a more efficient way.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * The content is relevant to the topic, however, I would say it definitely has the potential to be updated. It seems that the edits recently have been more so credibility and grammar than arising topics, which happens very quickly on social media. I think there could be more information about its history, who were early influencers, how different apps lead to this fame, and the demographic of those that are social media celebrities. It does not really address minorities as internet celebrities or how this has an effect on society's perceptions. I felt as if the article was very surfaced and needed more diversity in the overall conversation.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * It does seem to be written relatively neutral. I didn't really feel that I was being convinced to feel a certain way about a particular position while reading it. I don't feel as if there is enough information for anything to be underrepresented or overrepresented either.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * The sources don't seem to be extremely scholarly or reliable. Looking through, I saw Forbes and the LA Times which feels as if it may biased as they are a part of media and pop culture. Many of the edits were about sources. I feel as though there are scholarly articles out there with more information of value. There are quite a few that are from 2006-2011 which is a bit outdated in terms of social media and its current impact. Most of the links do work that I tried but one did not. The authors seem to be somewhat diverse but many of the articles were similar.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is easy to read and relatively concise, however, at certain points it may need some grammatical clarification. Some of the sentences are really short and abrupt where I feel information could be further elaborated. I think some of the sections could be combined, as there are two history sections, and some could be put under a more general heading with further elaboration.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * The article includes a limited amount of photos. The ones that were chosen make sense, however, more photos with relevancy could be added for enhancement of the article's message. Their captions are simple and could be developed a bit more, but more information about the photos are typically in the article. They seem to adhere to Wikipedia's regulations, but visually, they could be positioned better.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * The talk page has little relevancy to the actual article. One comment was about the amount that advertising is spoken about in the article compared to how the celebrities actually get famous which I feel is a valid discussion. It's rated as C-Class and High-Importance but does not seem to be a part of any WikiProjects. I think Wikipedia doesn't necessarily connect the culture to technology in the way we do in class. It seems to be written more as separate concepts.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * Overall the article seems to need decent amount of updating. The information that is there to work with does not necessarily seem bad, but it is very surfaced. It's strengths are the fact that it is concise and easy to understand. It covers a lot of the framework necessary for me to build off of. It's weaknesses include lack of important history and relevancy to today's social media practices. I feel it can be improved by digging a bit deeper about different genders and minorities within this internet celebrity culture along with more information about how their fame begins and how different platforms affect their fame. The information is good but it isn't developed as much as it needs to be.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: