User:Danibergeron/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?

Advertising media selection

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I wanted to choose an article that focused on the advertising aspect of strategic communication. The topic of this article caught my interest, but as I clicked on the article itself I realized that there was a lot of work that needed to be done to the article. I feel that due to the issues on the page already, using this article would be a great way to get the most out of my Wiki Project.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

The introductory sentence does include a definition of the topic, but the definition is not cited from a reliable source.
The lead lacks a sense of direction for the overall article. The steps of media-planning are discussed as-well-as things to take into consideration when creating a media plan. Although both of these steps are important in advertising, the article is about a step media planning and the focus of the article should highlight the options of media selection. Media-planning should not be a primary focus of the article.
Lead introduces the idea of digital and social media advertising, but the topics are discussed only briefly within the actual article. (Either needs to have more focus with-in the article, or left out of the lead.)
I would say the lead lacks having enough detail in general, and the detail it does include is not relevant to the overall purpose of the article.

Content

The content is relevant to the topic
The article is not up-to-date, and needs additional citations for verification.
I would say that there doesn't need to be as much detail on audience research and media scheduling. Discuss these topics briefly when discussing important considerations when selecting an advertising media and link the words to a page that goes into detail on the topic. For example: "Advertising media selection is one of the step in media-planning. There are many things to take into consideration when selecting the correct advertising media, such-as doing proper audience research." Although these topics are important and relevant to the article, focusing on them takes away from the over-all importance of the main idea.

Tone and Balance

The article is neutral, and does not try to persuade the reader to one side of an argument. No claims seem biased, but viewpoints just don't put enough emphasis on the subject.

Sources and References

The articles lacks sources, as-well-as; current and thorough sources.
Some links do not work
There are better sources available, such as scholar readings that have less of a persuasive tone to them.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is not well-written. The contents jump around making it difficult to understand the primary focus of the article.
The article is organized and relevant information is under the correct topic. However, in my opinion there is a more beneficial way to set up the article.
The article is concise and easy-to-read; but does lack detail.

Images and Media

The article does have some media, but the pictures are outdated.
The images are captioned, although I wouldn't say captions are relevant.
Lay-out of images could be more appealing.

Talk Page Discussion

There has not been any discussion on the Talk Page since 2017. The two contributors discuss the same concerns that I have about the article. Bronhiggs mentions the article has too many mismatched topics that it is trying to covers. Hydronium Hydroxide mentions that the topic is covered under Advertising management, Media-planning, and audience research. I do agree with both of these comments, But I think turning the article to focus on the different types of Advertising media to select from- discussing the advantages/disadvantages of each one. Also focusing on a true definition of what Advertising media is, not just advertising. After the types of media, go on to discuss the scheduling in detail as well consider describing the advantages/disadvantages of each. Add research to support the argument of when, what, and how we should use each media to advertise.
The article is within the scope of Wikiproject Marketing and Advertising. It was rated as a start-class on the quality scale and rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
The article is within the scope of Wikiproject Media. It was rated as a start-class on the quality scale and rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Overall Impressions

Overall, I think the article is on the correct road just in the wrong lane. The article has a good foundation, but it just needs to be rewritten in a way that is concise with the actually topic and does not over-lap into already existing articles. Removing irrelevant information and instead link the resource to that topic could help keep the article on track, and relay the correct information across that focuses on the topic.