 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
I chose the topic of mass communications because it relates to my area of study and field of work. Mass communication is always evolving and its Wikipedia page needs to change as the subject changes.
The first thing I noticed missing from the article was a citation in the second paragraph. Throughout the article, there are multiple missing citations and requests for citations to be added by editors. In the section about advertising, there was a self published source. It contained a great deal of information about all the different aspects of mass communications but some sections seemed excessive. For example; the history of photography and information about the contemporary photography industry could just be a link to another article rather than have their own sections. Additionally, the section about "catfishing" and the MTV series "Catfish" is irrelevant. There are no photos included in the article but that isn't always necessary.
The lead paragraph mentions several mediums that are developed upon further as the article goes on except billboards are not mentioned again. The issues and complications section may not be completely developed. There are certainly more than 2 issues with mass communication and the first paragraph in the section is biased against modern technologies. The sentence "Mass communication had evolved into something that has gone down an unforeseen path where it has become something extremely complicated and has major unintentional repercussions on people." is neither neutral nor well written. There is a wide array of view points and relevant citations, however citation #19 has no link attached. Every other link appeared to be working.
The article does appear to be up to date and addresses all of the changes that modern technology has had on mass communications. It acknowledges that television and radio are no longer as relevant as they used to be. Mass communication has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Society. Users in the talk page have described the article as "too vague" and "in need of clean up by a professional." I agree that there is value to the article but certain sections need to be removed and others need to be expanded upon.
| Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
I chose the topic of mass communications because it relates to my area of study and field of work. Mass communication is always evolving and its Wikipedia page needs to change as the subject changes.
The first thing I noticed missing from the article was a citation in the second paragraph. Throughout the article, there are multiple missing citations and requests for citations to be added by editors. In the section about advertising, there was a self published source. It contained a great deal of information about all the different aspects of mass communications but some sections seemed excessive. For example; the history of photography and information about the contemporary photography industry could just be a link to another article rather than have their own sections. Additionally, the section about "catfishing" and the MTV series "Catfish" is irrelevant. There are no photos included in the article but that isn't always necessary.
The lead paragraph mentions several mediums that are developed upon further as the article goes on except billboards are not mentioned again. The issues and complications section may not be completely developed. There are certainly more than 2 issues with mass communication and the first paragraph in the section is biased against modern technologies. The sentence "Mass communication had evolved into something that has gone down an unforeseen path where it has become something extremely complicated and has major unintentional repercussions on people." is neither neutral nor well written. There is a wide array of view points and relevant citations, however citation #19 has no link attached. Every other link appeared to be working.
The article does appear to be up to date and addresses all of the changes that modern technology has had on mass communications. It acknowledges that television and radio are no longer as relevant as they used to be. Mass communication has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Society. Users in the talk page have described the article as "too vague" and "in need of clean up by a professional." I agree that there is value to the article but certain sections need to be removed and others need to be expanded upon.