User:Bren.rogers/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A 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.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia 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.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A 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.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
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.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion

The 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.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback

A 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.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Strategic communication

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

This article was chosen due to it being a Start Class level (S) relating to the topic of strategic communication. This matters because the article is not yet a valuable source of information due to it being a preliminary article with much room for improvement. My initial impression of the article was that is seemed to be short and seemed slightly written in a unprofessional manner. There are many minor things that can be fixed in order to utilize the article's full potential.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

- The lead is simple and descriptive of the topic of the article.

- The lead sentence clearly gives a definition of the topic.

- The lead does not outline the subtopics relating (and/or) supporting the central topic of Strategic Communication.

Content- The majority of the content is relevant to the topic although the subject gets lost towards the end when discussing NATO and CD&E.

- The article should be updated relating to the constant and fast change of how mass media/digital media is growing and impacting the was strategic communication is applied.

- More examples relating to other parts of the field would provide more insight and understanding of the topic.

Tone & Balance- The article is neutral balanced and does not have any biases toward any certain view points.

- The tone is too instructional and needs to be written with a factual point of view.

- The writer should limit the words they, them, and their so that the reader does not get lost as to who the writer is talking about.

Sources & References

- Sources and references are accurately provided allowing the readers to access them easily.

Organization & Writing Quality

- Organization is in a good and well thought out format.

- The writing is clear and concise.

Images & Media

- There are no images provided.

- Provide charts and visuals, such as an example of the strategic plan.

Talk Page Discussion

- There is a dead conversation within the talk with the last entry being from 2016, this goes to prove that the page needs to be updated and talked about to better encompass modern day trends within the public sphere.

- There have only been three entries.

Overall Impressions

- This articles overall status remains S class.

- This article strengths revolves around the definition of strategic communication and the organization of article.

- This articles weaknesses involve the talk page, out of date, images, and lack of explanation.

- This article is underdeveloped, but on its' way to becoming a reliable source of information.