User talk:Kgomes11

Welcome!
Hello, Kgomes11, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions
Hello, I read this article and while it was a great article, there are a few critiques and things that could be changed in order to improve it. Here are some of my suggestions.

Article Critiques Citation six, ten, and eleven have a citation that is no longer there. When I click on the citation links there is no article or source. For citation six, I found another source that has the reports of the state of the media is actually from 2018. The source is https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/292fd37c-30d8-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1/language-en and is reliable. It’s a government based website and are factual reports. Citation ten just had an broken link. The website still had the same page and information but just needed to update the link to: https://www.allcommunitymedia.org/ACM/About/ACM/About/About_ACM.aspx?hkey=db0da5f6-2dd1-4780-84dd-f8ebf720cf1f Citation eleven is another broken link. When you click on the citation, it states that the website is down and will be up soon. The best choice would be to remove this citation until we know that the website is back. Citation fourteen is not a reliable citation because they’re talking about an organization and then citing the organizations page. According to the Wikipedia Sources Guidelines, a source should be “independant of the subject”, so it shouldn’t be from the actual organization website because it’s going to be biased. Citation twenty is not a reliable citation because it’s an article that is a press material from Forbes. It’s also a biased article because it’s arguing towards one side instead of having a neutral stand point. The article title is named, How Community Media can Encourage Minority Communities to Engage, so it’s clear that they are only arguing towards one side. Also Genia Stevens, the author of the article has an biased experience with this stuff because she’s a managing partner at a company that specializes in helping community media. Citation twenty one is an unreliable source because it’s an article from an unreliable source. After reading the article from Thrive Global, I noticed that this was more of an opinion piece than a fact piece. They use a lot of words like “My experience,”, “I would want”, and more personal narrative quotes. Neutrality: One thing I noticed is that while each region has it’s own section and most of them are equal in information, most of them have a paragraph of information there are two sections where one is underrepresented and the other is overrepresented. The Bangladesh section is super long and over powers the other sections regarding information. I found it weird when reading through the section that they said things like, “We are also giving thanks to the Ministry of Information that it is because of their good intention…”. To me that seems biased and should be removed from the article because its extremely biased and commending one source which is against the Wikipedia guidelines. The section that is underrepresented is the Europe section. There is only one source and little information that is represented in a bit of a biased way. There should be more information on this page that argues a counter viewpoint.

Thank you Kgomes11 (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)