User:Whittmiller/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Message

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate "message" as I think it is the central idea around communication. It involves first having a message that needs to be shared or given. Then it is also how one receives a message. I think that the term message can be very simple as I just described but it also has complexities. I also chose this article because it seemed that it needed some help. I don't know how much I will be able to add to the computer science portion of the article but I do believe I can help it in other areas. It was a lot shorter than I anticipated and I think there is some more information that could be added.

Evaluate the article
Lead.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - I believe that the introductory sentence does concisely and clearly describe the article's topic. The word "unit" is interesting as it seems to be attempting to make a message something that is more tangible.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does describe a brief description. It shows how it can be through an electronic bus or computer. I would argue that it could have more information on human roles as that is the first main section. In the lead it only states couriers which involve humans. I think it should just be a little more clear that roles in human communication and messages is a main point of the article.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) - I would argue that a carrier pigeon shouldn't be in the lead. I think this is more of a distraction to what a message actually is.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? - The lead is very concise. I think it should include more about how messages have evolved with technology a little bit more. They only mention it through electronic bus but it is an important piece of the article under computer science. I also think the article could rid of the carrier pigeon as they don't actually carry any messages, but other than that it is concise.

Content


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? - Yes the article's content is relevant to the topic. The history portion doesn't have any content so I am unsure if that is relevant or just needs information.
 * Is the content up-to-date? - There is some parts where the article it up-to-date with recent sources up to 2023. However, I would argue that some the content is a little outdated. There is an argument that this article should include messages and how AI plays a role in creating and aiding in messaging. That being said I don't think any of the article should be deleted because it is older I just think there should be more added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - History portion is missing content or it needs to be removed.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - No, this article does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the article neutral? - Yes this article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? - Not applicable to the article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not. This article deals more with one certain topic and the fact of what a message is and consists of. The tone is more informative without there being any sense of opinions.

Sources and References


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - I would argue that some are reliable and some are not. One source is from a blog where it talks about what a mixed message is. I would say that it isn't the most reliable source of information. Also one of the sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes, most of the sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current? - I would say that most are yes. There are two sources from 2019 which I would say are soon to be out of date. However all of the other ones are within the last 2 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Yes, there are not too many sources but it does seem to be a diverse spectrum of those who have cited things in the article.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) - There are definitely better sources available. There would be peer-reviewed articles of mixed messages instead of a blog.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes all of the links work!

Organization and Writing Quality


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, I would say that the article covers all of those. It is very concise, clear and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? - Not that I have found through my couple of times reading through the article. I could have missed one though.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - I would say that it is. Again not sure about the history section of the article but the other two are definitely major points of the topic.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - I like the second image of a veterans tombstone. It includes message in the headstone as well as provides an example of a message. The first image of the girl smiling to a camera writing something is questionable. It is an old picture in which you can assume she is writing a message but I don't know if it does anything else.
 * Are images well-captioned? - The second one is. The first one seems to be just the source with no caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - Yes they do.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - They are back to back which isn't the most visually appealing. However with how short the article is I don't know if you could separate them.

Talk Page discussion


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? - There are no conversations on the talk page of this article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? -It is involved in Linguistics and media. It is part of the Wiki Education assignment.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? - The only difference is that in class we discussed how we can see why edits were made. On this talk page there isn't much information.

Overall Impressions


 * What is the article's overall status? - It is rated Start class on wikipedia. I would say that it would recieve a lower rating than other articles as it seems that it does not have much density to it.
 * What are the article's strengths? - It is very straightforward and easy to read. You can understand generally what a message is and how it is used in communication.
 * How can the article be improved? - I think that some of the sources could be improved. It also needs work on the History section of the article. I would say that it has a lot of room for added material.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? - I would say that it is underdeveloped. It isn't poorly developed but I don't think this article is complete quite yet.