User:Tui16726/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the Internet Slang Wikipedia page.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the Internet Slang page, because it is something that I use everyday, and it interests me. It matters, because social media and texting are two main media platforms, and internet slang is used very often to communicate on these platforms. After reading the article, I realized that it needed a lot of work and thought it would be a good article to research and edit.

Evaluation
Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The article goes right into the definition of Internet slang. However, the definition used in the article needs improvement, because it only says that it is "slang used by people on the Internet." Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does not mention the major sections in the introduction. ''Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) It doesn't. Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?'' The lead is concise

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes Is the content up-to-date? No, some content referenced is from 1997. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, the origin of internet slang is only two sentences and doesn't provide a lot of information. ''Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?'' There are gaps in the origins, the internet slang around the world, and their names. The origins don't really say how internet slang came to be and only represents its history in two sentences. Some of the names for internet slang are outdated. The slang around the world only talks about China and other countries and subgroups are underrepresented.

Is the article from a neutral point of view? No Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? On the talk page, it claims that the article mostly criticizes internet slang and is very light on content on how it has impacted in a positive way. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? A lot of the content on the page is underrepresented or needs to go into more details about certain topics.' Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? There are biases in the article that need to be improved. Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Yes

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some of the information in the first paragraph is not supported by a reliable source. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. Are the sources current? No, the most current one is dated in 2014. ''Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?'' There is a diverse spectrum of authors and they do include those individuals. Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? Yes there are more updated articles and journals found in our school's library. ''Check a few links. Do they work?'' Most work, a few do not.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is clearly broken up into sections and is easy to read, but it lacks information that is needed and needs some modifications. Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The first image is confusing, especially because they do not explain it within the article and how it has to do with internet slang. Are images well-captioned? Yes Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There are only two, but yes.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The conversations are about how some of the words redirect back to the Internet Slang article and how to fix other issues within the article. ''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'' It is rated S and it is in interest to other WikiProjects. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In class, we discussed the history of the internet and later on we will be discussing internet culture, MEMEs, and GIFs.

What is the article's overall status? Overall, it needs work. What are the article's strengths? The way it is organized, and the amount of reliable sources used. How can the article be improved? I think the article needs additional information with the origins, usage of internet slang around the world, and a mew definition for the word itself. Also, some of the information in the article might need to be modernized. ''How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?'' It is underdeveloped.