User:Anonymousardvark/Evaluate an Article

• Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it mentions the topic right away.
• Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it does not. This could be added.
• Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No, it does not.
• Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise and well written, with enough content for the reader but not too much information it is overwhelming.
  • Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, very much so.
  • Is the content up-to-date? Yes, up to 2018 and I doubt anything else has happened substantially since that time.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
  • Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.
    • Is the article neutral? In most ways yes, although it does not have a quote by the actual Stephen Glass on why he did what he did.
    • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
    • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are no positions from Stephen himself explaining why he lied and was so manipulative. Maybe that part is in his book which is mentioned multiple times, although it is mentioned he paid the publishing companies back later in his life for his "wring doing" to them. I just think a quote from him on why would help.
    • Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? N/A.
    • Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.
      • Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
      • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
      • Are the sources current? Some are not because they reflect the stories from the time they occurred in the early 2000s but the other links are more current those are just historically accurate.
      • Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No, many of the sources are just very broad wikipedia sources and then some are people with little information and some are hugely important people with lots of information, for example Bill Clinton.
      • 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 not many peer reviewed articles on this specific topic because it is not an academic topic.
      • Check a few links. Do they work? They work but many of them just link to other Wikipedia pages.
        • Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very much so. It tells the story very clearly.
        • Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that were so major that I immediately noticed.
        • Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the sections are very helpful and include journalism career, new republic work, exposure, aftermath, depiction in other media, restitution efforts, etc.
          • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, it does not include any images at all so that is where it could improve.
          • Are images well-captioned? N/A
          • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
          • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A
            • What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? This specific article must adhere to the Wiki policies about biographies of living people so all non-sourced or incorrectly sourced information is cut immediately.
            • How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as C-class on the content assessment scale. It is in the Wiki projects of Biography, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Journalism, University of Pennsylvania.
            • How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
            • What is the article's overall status? The article has been listed as a level 5 vital article in people, Journalists
            • What are the article's strengths? The article is concise and clear about the timeline and story and the ultimate decline of Stephen Glass as a journalist.
              • How can the article be improved? The article could be greatly improved by adding pictures and images of any and all kinds because right now it does not have a single one.
              • How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Which article are you evaluating?

Stephen Glass

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article to evaluate because in one of my classes last year in a media class we discussed the effects of journalism and the trust it can have on the public sphere. It is important to understand the impact that media pressure (whether big or small) can have on certain

Evaluate the article

This article needs some improvements such as added pictures and captions to add more information and help the page be more engaging and dynamic for readers and to help them get more of a sense of the story of who Stephen Glass really was as a journalist. However, in terms of content this article provides a lot of information about Stephen Glass and his ultimate fall from grace in the journalism field. I also think the other information about Glass later in his life is important as well to show how he tried to move on from his past into a career in law.