User:StudentTwiki/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
PBS Kids

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Although I plan on creating a new article for my final Wikipedia assignment, I chose this article to evaluate because the brand "PBS Kids" is highly related to my chosen topic, PBS's 1992 Ready-to-Learn (RTL) programming block. I decided to create a Wikipedia article on Ready-to-Learn because the initiative is regarded as being a trailblazer in structuring educational children's programming in the US. Since I am studying children's media with the goal to one day work in the field, I find this topic to be very interesting. The subject can also intersect with discussing early 2000's "kid-friendly" websites, making the article a perfect addition to a course surrounding technology and culture. Despite this topic being related to PBS, the subject matter can easily stand alone as its own article since Ready-to-Learn became an initiative that involved more than just PBS television programming. I also believe the article should stand alone becuase the Ready-to-Learn initiative predates the existence of both the PBS Kids channel and PTV. While the PBS Kids Wikipedia article does mention Ready-to-Learn very briefly, I think the article could certainly benefit from an extended look at this initiative and how it impacted other children's networks in the years that followed.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section

The lead, in my opinion, contains a summary sentence that concisely explains the topic to anyone who isn't aware. The lead also includes a description of the major sections of the article such as History, Programming blocks, Critical reception, and Network. The lead only includes information that is found later in the article. Overall, I consider the lead to be very concise and informative.

Content

Yes, the content on the PBS Kids Wikipedia article is relevant to the topic. The content is also up-to-date. One way I know is that the page includes the updated PBS Kids logo that the organization recently adopted in 2022. To my knowledge, the article does not contain any significant content gaps, although I plan on further expanding the Ready-to-Learn initiative information featured in the History section. The article does not directly address topics related to historically underrepresented populations, however since PBS was founded on the principle of providing free televised content to low income communities, I'm sure this topic could be addressed further.

Tone and Balance  The article appears to be written in a neutral tone. There are no claims that appear to be heavily biased nor do I believe any one viewpoint is over or underrepresented. Although there is not much mention of minority viewpoints in the article, I believe the topic could benefit from elaborating more on the low income and minority voices that motivated the creation of the programming station, PBS Kids. I don't believe the article attempts to persuade viewers in any particular/biased direction.

Sources and References

All facts in the article are supported by hyperlinked references that fact-check the information. The sources, which includes newspaper articles, press releases, and journal articles, are all current (when applicable) and thorough. Although there are some diverse voices behind the sources used in the PBS Kids article, I did find that many of the sources come from white authors, especially the articles written in the 1990s and 2000s. I don't believe that there are better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles, that the PBS Kids article is not already using. Since the facts and information listed in the article are about the history, ratings, and programs related to the network, there isn't any further analysis required through the use of peer-reviewed articles. I believe the information already listed on the page can be better cited through press releases and news articles. After clicking on many links embedded in the article, I found that they all work, with many older articles taking me to "Way Back Machine" archived articles.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is, in my opinion, well-written and concise. The article doesn't contain any noticeable spelling or grammar errors and I would consider the layout of the article to be very well organized and easy to understand. I especially appreciate the chart provided at the bottom of the page that clearly outlines all affiliate PBS Kids stations across the country.

Images and MediaThe article's only images are the past and current logo of the PBS Kids station, however, I don't think any other images are necessary to further the article's understanding. Both images are well captioned. The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and, in my opinion, are presented in an appealing way in the article.

Talk page discussion

The talk page has been relatively quiet, with the most recent comment posted in 2014. Most commenters mention adding a program that was not talked about in the article or updating a program's status to include whether or not it is still on the air. One commenter suggested that the article create graph that highlighted the current and former programs of the network. The article is apart of a few WikiProjects, such as WikiProjects Television, American Television, and Brands. Two of the WikiProjects included a C-class rating. We have never directly mentioned PBS Kids and the network's impact in class, so there is not much to compare the Wikipedia discussions to.

Overall impressions

Overall, I believe the article to be very strong. The article contains many necessary facts and pieces of information regarding the network's history, programming, and affiliate stations. I believe the article's biggest strength to be its lead section since the section clearly outlines and summarizes the topic. The article's biggest weakness, in my opinion, is that it doesn't address the history of PBS's programming as much as it could. That's why I am suggesting that there be a separate Ready-to-Learn initiative article created and linked to the PBK Kids page that highlights the early history of educational programming on the broadcasting service. Although there is more to improve upon this article, I believe it to be relatively complete and well-developed as is.