User:Croxrys/Evaluate an Article
 | 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose to evaluate this article because it is crucial to understand how humor is used in politics as an influence to create opinions, and it is important to be able to find accurate information on how it is used and how it has came to be. However, this article lacks some perspective of political satire of non-western culture and does not provide a global viewpoint of satire in political elements from around the world. Not only that, but this article does not give enough history of the influence of political satire from before 2020, as it mentions mostly US 2020 discussions of it. The article includes a strong introduction to the topic, however it is a short introduction which lacks a description of the author's major points. The introduction is straight to the point, however, does not include a full peak into the information that will be shared of it.
Evaluate the article
[edit]This article explains the background of political satire well, however fails to show proof of evidence or connections to evidence in a strong manner. The article runs well when it comes to points, however it is somewhat disorganized and needs more images that help bring the point across better. The article is not up to date, as the latest political satire shared was from 2020, three years ago which may not live up to how political satire is viewed in this current year - or past year. The content for history is relevant, however examples of modern day usage is very outdated and could be correctly updated to sarcastic twitter posts, such as those between Greta Thunberg and "trolls" or at least more recent political cartoons. The article needs more evidence on how political satire came to be and how it is used across countries in more modern times.
The article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps as it mainly focuses on Western political satire rather than global political satire. The article is neutral, however it does not shy away from only mentioning Western (mostly American) examples of political satire. There seem to be no specific claims to a specific position of controversial topics. The article is not meant to be persuasive, it is mostly educational as it works to teach on what is political satire and how it is used to persuade.
Most of the article has sources on random artifacts rather than on actual "evidence" being used, and the evidence also has to be clearer. It must be explained what was said in a play or poem that made the text be political satire.
The sources are reliable, however they are ones that back up evidence that supplies random and smaller facts rather than ones that are needed for actual proof of history and usage of political satire in the real world. The authors of all sources used come from a spectrum of educated individuals. The article is well written with few to no grammatical errors. However, the way it is formatted is somewhat off and could use some balance, as its main focus has mostly been on the usage of political satire in the US and how it has came to be.
The images, however, are not greatly linked to political satire as they are of older dates and do not portray specific or even good forms of political satire in cartoons. The images are well-captioned, but do not follow copyright rules, and they do not correctly link to the article nor do they provide recent examples for readers to understand. No, the images are not displayed in a visually appealing way.
The article is part of a WikiProject of politics and comedy. Much of the talk page is educating on adjustments made to the article or adjustments that should be made. The Wikipedia page discusses this topic of political satire (propaganda usage) as we have discussed in class as this is a form of being able to campaign against or for a cause. This article overall needs some work done in organization and evidence, however, is well written and has okay examples of political satire.