User:Tuh00694/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: Television studies
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because it is related to our course, Technology and Culture, and is a further discussion of a previous reading, Raymond Williams' "The technology and the society."

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the article includes an introductory sentence that clearly defines the topic and a brief synopsis of the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the Lead includes a brief description of the background/history of the topic that leads into the History section. The article also has a Scholars section due to the fact that it is an article based on researched studies.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the Lead seems to include all information that is present in the article or cited to another source that leads to more information on the cited subject.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I believe the Lead is concise. It gives a short but clear message of what the article is about and what the audience should expect from the information provided below.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic. The content provides a history of the subject, scholars, journals, and other bodies of work. It does not seem to include any information that is not relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No: In the history section, information seems to be mostly from the 20th century and no information is included from studies/changes in technology in the 21st century. Also, some citations are missing from the scholars that are named but do not have a Wikipedia page. The article also has a page titled Further reading, which appears to be more information related to the topic. However, none of this information/sources is included in the History section.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes. As explained above, the history section does not seem to include information from the 21st century, and citations are missing.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there does not seem to be any sort of biased claims. Contributors pull from various sources to make the article appear to have information regarding the debate surrounding television studies.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, as previously mentioned, the viewpoints are well-balanced to give the audience a sense of how difficult this field is.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes and no. Most, if not all, are provided with reliable citations, but some scholars are missing a citation/Wikipedia page. Therefore, it's difficult to assess the scholar's knowledge and background on the topic.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes and no. The contributors pull from several sources to display the various viewpoints on this topic, but more sources could have been used for supporting information that is currently provided.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. The latest source is from 2016.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes. Most of the sources are print, but one source is accessed through an online database.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is clear and simply to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, it does not appear so.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the article provides a clear and organized structure to provide an understanding on this topic. However, it could use more information in the history section to include more information from arguments surrounding this topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are no conversations regarding this article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is listed as a level-5 vital article under Society. It has been rated as a Start-Class within WikiProject Television.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * As previously mentioned, the article seems to be missing references/information regarding this study in the 21st century. It is crucial to include more current information to stay up-to-date with changes in society.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is a good start, but it needs more information/supporting citations to give the audience a deeper understanding of the complex topic.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article appears to address the complexities with this topic, and pulls from valid sources to highlight these narratives.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can include more information from the 21st century and use sources from the Further Reading section to address these weaknesses.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article appears to be under-developed, but on it's way to being well-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: