User:Definitely not omar/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](Provide a link to the article here.)
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because it combined beautifully with my Project 1 topic of Source credibility. The article is literally called "Source Credibility", like it was made for my project about deciphering the credibility of sources, avoiding misinformation and recognizing bias in writing. It matters because knowing if a piece of information is trustworthy is a HUGE life skill to have as you don't want to be misguided from false, or manipulated statements from questionable sources. My first impression of this article was literally "what the heck?" as I was not expecting an article that was literally about my whole project's topic. I also thought that it was very well written, but the structuring was a little confusing at first.
Evaluate the article
[edit](Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
Lead Section
[edit]The lead section provides a concise and clear introduction to the topic of source credibility, offering a definition and some historical context. It describes Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos as foundational concepts and connects them to modern studies on credibility.
Evaluation based on guidelines:
- Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead effectively introduces the topic.
- Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead does not summarize the article’s structure.
- Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the information in the lead aligns with the article content.
- Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but it could be expanded slightly to include an overview of the article’s structure.
Maybe?
- Add a brief summary of the main sections of the article.
Content
[edit]The article provides a detailed discussion on the history, dimensions, and applications of source credibility. It covers various topics and practical uses, like in media, politics, and online. However, some sections lack depth and examples.
Evaluation based on guidelines:
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, it stays focused on source credibility.
- Is the content up-to-date? Some parts rely on older studies, but newer references are also included.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The "Media Credibility Index" section needs more detail; nothing appears irrelevant though.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? It doesn’t address equity gaps explicitly no.
Maybe?
- Expand the "Media Credibility Index" section with more detail and examples.
Tone and Balance
[edit]The tone is neutral and does not favor any particular viewpoint. The article appropriately presents multiple perspectives on credibility issues, such as media trust and political endorsements.
Evaluation based on guidelines:
- Is the article neutral? Yes, the article maintains neutrality.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, claims appear to be balanced.
- Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Minority or Fringe viewpoints are not really discussed.
Maybe?
Sources and References
[edit]The article uses a variety of sources , like academic studies, books, and journals. While the citations are thorough, some are old and could probably be replaced with more recent research.
Evaluation based on guidelines:
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the facts are sourced.
- Are the sources thorough? Mostly, but some older studies could be updated.
- Are the sources current? Some are not, such as references from the 1970s.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? No, this could be improved.
Maybe?
- Update older references and include more diverse sources.
- Verify that all hyperlinks are functional.
Organization and Writing Quality
[edit]The article is well-organized, with logical sections and subsections. The writing is clear and professional, but transitions between sections could be improved.
Evaluation based on guidelines:
- Is the article well-written? Yes, but some sections could be smoother.
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None were found.
- Is the article well-organized? Yes, but transitions could be stronger.
Maybe?
- Add summary sentences at the end of longer sections.
- Use transitions to connect sections more fluidly.
Images and Media
[edit]The article includes a few images, like the "Dynamics of Source Credibility" diagram, but they lack detailed captions.
Evaluation based on guidelines:
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but not many.
- Are images well-captioned? No, captions are little to none.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Maybe?
- Add detailed captions explaining the relevance of each image.
- Ensure all images meet copyright standards
Talk page discussion
[edit]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? No conversations; just 2 updates/edits in total on talk page. One of them being a message of the most recent edits being part of a course assignment.
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a C-Class, only being part of the "Psychology" WikiProject.
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It differs as it contributes a lot more into just source credibility in the real world, alongside other information that is interrelated with source credibility.
Overall impressions
[edit]- What is the article's overall status? The article's overall status is very good, just some polish work and adding a few extra edits and pieces of information!
- What are the article's strengths?
-Neutral Tone
-Well organized into sections
-Well communicated information/ Not confusing
- How can the article be improved?
-Expand on the lead
-Better, updated references
-Expand/Add Captions
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say the article is just developed, nothing more, nothing less. It has the possibility of becoming a well-developed article however, with just a few minor edits, updated references and polishing up the information on the page.