User:TheaO19/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The Social Dilemma

Evaluate the article
Lead Sections:

Content:
 * Gives you the director and writer who established this film
 * Tells you the main point of the film

Tone and Balance
 * Gives us a summary about what the film is about and what its three main goals are
 * Up to date, last edit was September 2023

Sources and References:
 * Tone is calm and informational
 * The article is balanced with information

Organization and Writing Quality:
 * The sources used seem reliable, some more than others
 * All sources have some way to the film directly or information to support the film

Images and Media:
 * Easy to read and understand
 * Concise
 * no grammar or spelling mistakes
 * Split the article into small sections and focused on that topic only in that section

Talk Page Discussion:
 * One image of the movie banner
 * Placed at the top of the article and underneath is all the film information


 * Not much going on
 * Last talk was January 2023

Overall Impression


 * It was a good article and easy to understand what the purpose of this film was
 * The article gave thro information and understand how the social media world changed
 * Article gives a great overview of the film and how it's effecting society today

Which article are you evaluating?
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog

Evaluate the article
Lead Sections:

Content:
 * The first sentence completely describes the topic of the article
 * It does not talk about the other section that are in the article, like the history, context, implications, or pop culture
 * It does not talk about the publication date or how much he earned but its mentioned in the lead section
 * It is concise

Tone and Balance
 * History and pop culture was relevant, but the other sections, context, implications were not super relevant to the article
 * It is pretty up to date with the most recent edit being September 19, 2023
 * The section of implications doesn’t really belong, there is info that really isn’t needed. There really isn’t any information that is missing
 * It doesn’t really deal with equity gaps. The only thing would be what we learned about the author and that he contributed to the New Yorker. It doesn’t address anything about underrepresented populations or topics.

Sources and References:
 * The beginning of it is neutral up until the implication section. That section deals more with what the author of the article is getting out of the cartoon versus staying neutral.
 * The article doesn’t really show viewpoints except for the implications section. It does give a few viewpoints of Sherry Turkle.
 * The cartoon in itself might be trying to sway people but that due to it being a cartoon. The article itself does not try to sway anyone.

Organization and Writing Quality:
 * The sources used seem to be reliable. Except for sources 11 and 14 which don’t seem to be necessary for the article.
 * Yes the sources are thorough, all of the sources talk about parts relevant to the topic, such as the actual cartoons, the author, or the New Yorker
 * Yes the sources are current, the most recent sources are from around 2010-2017
 * A few of the sources work, while a couple of them do not work

Images and Media:
 * Yes it is concise and is easy enough to read and understand
 * There are no grammatical or spelling errors within the article
 * It is well organized and they split it within sections that make sense

Talk Page Discussion:
 * It includes the cartoon so yes it is relevant to the topic
 * The images are well captioned and explain what is being shown
 * Yes they adhere to wikipedia's copyright regulations
 * The images are laid out well in a visually appealing way

Overall Impression
 * There is not much going on, the last update/conversation was from 2016, which was the ones adding the unnecessary links
 * It is rated good, it is part of a Wikiproject called “articles for creation”  “Computing internet” “internet culture” and “sociology”


 * The status of the article says that it is a good one
 * The strengths are being concise and getting to the point
 * The article could be improved by staying on topic, not sharing their thoughts on implications, and using relevant information
 * It is underdeveloped, could use more relevant information