User:Vada.amerson/Evaluate an Article

Vada.amerson/Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Mass Communications: (Mass communication)
 * I choose to evaluate this article because I am interested in mass communications, and I want to learn more about the mass media especially in photography which is one of my hobbies. I want to see how mass communications plays a part in our lives and how it will still be there in the more years to come.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead introduces an introductory sentence that describes the topic because it states that mass communications is sending and receiving information through the mass media, and it describes further on about the different mediums of mass media that users face everyday. The article does provide different sections about mass media. For instance, advertising, public relations social media, music, TV, and also it talks about the different type of journalism that exists. The lead includes information about how mass communication is different from organization and interpersonal communication, but those two specific things are not discussed in the paragraphs after the leading introduction. The lead is very descriptive and concise because it's not too hard to understand, and it clearly states the definition and provides examples of different mediums.


 * 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

Yes, the article is relevant to the topic because it discusses how all of these type of medium is useful in the industry. For example, advertising is the exchange of information that is sent between users everywhere. Online, in the newspapers, and on social media. It's everywhere where everybody can see it. Some of the content in the references have up-to-date content. There are some references that are from 2014, 2017, however there is one that I think was a little out-to-date was the one from 1986. I think that most of the content was there is related to mass communication, however there was some content that I think there needs to be more. For example, with photography, there was little information about the history and today of photography as well as video games. It had maybe one or two references in there, but I think more information could be added to specifically how photography is today.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

I think within the article being neutral, is somewhere in the middle because it does provide support for their argument, but not enough as much as to be expected. It makes some very good points that are relevant to mass communication, it just needs more support. I don't think there are any claims about anything being biased to a position because most of the content seem fair to the topic. I think that the viewpoints are underrepresented because there are not enough support or claims that will make a reader to believe it. The article may look like it's not credible. The article does have references and viewpoints, it just needs to have more support and back-up evidence to support the claims.


 * 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

Some of the facts are supported by a secondary source such as articles, however some of the links are not accessible. I noticed one of the links was unavailable. Some of the sources are thorough with the name of the title, author, page number, etc... Some of the sources are current from 2014 and 2017, however there were some sources that were a little not current. For example, there were some sources from 1972, 1974, etc... One of the first links about "What Is Advertising?" did not work, and there were some links that have the EBSCO link that a user would have to have a user name and password to get into the website.


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

I think the article is good written. It clearly states what each section is about especially with the introductory sections. It had good headings that a user could follow. Some of the sections were in the right categories. For example, there is heading section that states " Types of Mass Communication, and it listed advertising, and journalism, and the different type of journalism that is out there that some users may not know about. Some of the heading had some capital errors, but the article is well organized. It starts off with a good introduction, and then it has the heading about the types of mass communication, and under that it lists the subcategories of the different mediums. Then the article has another heading about the theories in communication, and the methods of the study.


 * 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

Throughout the article, there wasn't any images. I didn't see one at the beginning or in the middle, however at the very end of the article, there is a box that has the title, "Communication Studies" and it showed a small picture about codifying and decodifying a message. With that specific image, it did have a very appealing way about how the sender sends and how the receiver interprets that message.


 * 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
 * Some of the conversations that are going about in the talk page is that some of the users were complaining about being to vague or not enough references. This article is rated as a class project because there is a professor that wants his students to work on this article, so that is part of what I think is a WikiProjects. Wikipedia discusses this topic as being to vague which is what we talked about in the training modules about how not to be vague, and from what we've talked about in class is to not support something without any evidence.


 * 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

The article's overall status is that it needs to be improved and it's not of good status. Some of the article's strengths is the introduction, and having different type of mediums to support the mass communications. It provided different headings of what's part of the topic. The article needs improvement in capitalization, more support and evidence. I would fix this article up about to provide more writing and use current sources. I would add sources that have workable links.


 * 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:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_communication&action=edit&section=9