User talk:Stellydellybelly/Evaluate an Article

I have chosen this article.

I picked this article because I wanted to learn about this book without any bias about it. The neutral stance is important because when learning educational things, there should be no opinion formed for you.

This article is very neutral with working links that add more insight into the communication theory for anyone unclear. Multiple links are used for sources, which shows this article is reliable. Also, it includes every editor of this book on the page. The article also covers everything I need to know about what the book Communication Studies is focused on including its accomplishments. It also includes the year it was written and published and the process it took to be published I will say, that maybe the amount of chapters and their content could be added if possible. --Stellydellybelly (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I have chosen this article

I picked this article because I was interested in mass media and companies that developed in 2024.

This article is great at linking profiles to all the names mentioned. It doesn't source within the article but has a reference list at the bottom. Instead of mentioning the company is a competitor, it said it is labeled as a competitor. This creates a small bias because the article is giving out a popular opinion which may sway the reader that is not linked to a confirmed source.

I Have chosen this article

I picked this article because the two main candidates in this election are very controversial people.

This was a very long article and included a lot of topics I'm not very knowledgeable about. It included many topics about certain subjects to understand context/background which is great for readers like me. It also had many different sections that went into this scandal in chronological order. I went onto the talk page and saw that a user critiqued and edited the introduction because it was too long and wordy. This user narrowed it down to; who, what, when, where, and why. They also said there were too many citations that would be more useful in other sections of the article. This article is very reliable with over 200 citations to fact check on, they are cited throughout the entire article. I detected no bias because it was mainly about cyber security and how the hacking took place. It still mentioned what was in the hacked content but it was all presented factually.

I have chosen this article

I picked this article because the title caught my attention very quickly, "If you see something, say something"

Right away I noted that the article title was a little misleading about the content. I assumed it would focus on safety campaigns but it was much more than that. This article goes over the entire background of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority including charts of the board members. The section labeled "issues" made me think I was about to start reading bias and it was a little conflicting. The phrase such as "growing crisis" gave off a little bias, the following information was confirmed and sourced but it could have been written differently with a more neutral word choice. The talk page has many updated external links which shows that it is updated with recent information. 2603:8000:BAF0:4A70:D12E:95C2:606A:13E7 (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)