User:MDWebb5/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 this article to evaluate because after a quick browse of the information, I found that I do not know much about the subject and could learn some new information about the connection between politics and communication.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead section
The lead section of the article does a great job at introducing the topic of political communication and provides enough detail to allow the reader to understand what is about to be discussed. A formal breakdown of the article's major sections is not present, however, most of section's topics are mentioned and given a small description. No information present is absent within the actual article. Overall, the lead paragraph is to the point and provides just the right amount of detail to set up the rest of the article.
Content
The information presented within the article is directly related to the topic of the piece and does not get caught on tangents irrelevant to the main idea. Examining the dates of the sources used shows that a good bit of the information is over ten years old, even twenty. This is a little outdated considering how ideas like the ones mentioned correlate to changes in society that happen every few years. One of the sections of the article "Fields and areas of study", is not mentioned within the lead section and while it does grant some bits of interesting information, is not directly needed for the discussion. The article does not directly discuss any of Wikipedias equity gaps but does bring to light the connection between political communication and individuals of the Middle East, who have been affected by a lack-there-of.
Tone and Balance
The overall tone of the article is neutral and does not overly favor or criticize one side of the discussion- a strong quality given the topic revolves around political ideas. The article makes various claims for and against certain parties, including the discussion about the Bush Administration and the Abu Ghraib case. However this is backed by sources and the author seems to simply be providing an example, rather than taking a side. Any fringe viewpoints are directly backed by a source or are a direct quote from an individual other than the author. Generally, the article does not attempt to persuade readers, instead provides a basis of information about political communication without taking a specific side.
Sources and References
Nearly all of the facts written in the article are backed up by valid sources. There are a mix of websites (not preferable), journal articles, and scholarly books. Twenty-four sources are present demonstrating a solid breadth of the topic discussed. Some current sources are utilized, however, a decent amount of the sources used are out-of-date and some are over twenty years old. All of them though include a diverse group of authors with many different viewpoints on a topic. Given that a few of the sources are outdated and some opinionated websites are used, one would assume that more relevant and better pieces of information are available. All of the links checked worked. There is a banner present that warns about using certain constructs related to footnotes present in the article. As far as I could tell, this did not directly interfere with proper citing or location of such.
Organization and writing quality
The article is quite well written and easy to follow from idea to idea, aided by the subsections present. No spelling errors were present, but a few grammatical issues are there including improper use of single quotations ('...').
Images and Media
Only one image is present within the article at the very beginning about the Bush Administration. The image deals with one piece of information discussed early on, and faintly relates to the topic in which the image is inserted. It is captioned well, adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and is placed in a visually appealing position. There is definitely possibility for more pictures throughout the article that would help the readers understanding and make the article that much more appealing to read through.
Talk page discussion
There are three discussion posts about the article. One is a question to, I assume the author, if they are able to add a piece of information. The other two posts in the talk page are dealing with plans to edit the article, specifically within the section talking about the implications of social media on modern-day political communication. The article is rated as a "level-5 vital article" and is a part of three separate wiki project on politics, media, and telecommunications. The article was additionally the topic of a "Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment." One way in which Wikipedia discusses this topic different from how we talked in class is that it praises the use of social media for this type of communication, when in class, we discussed the problems social media directly has on communication.
Overall impressions
Personally, I enjoyed reading the article and fulfilled my goal of learning something new. The author did a great job at discussing political communication in a way that the general populous could understand. Furthermore, the flow and division of the article was good and contributed to the reading experience. A few improvements could be made though. First, more pictures could be used throughout the article to enhance the piece and provide further points of information. Pictures often help avoid confusion. Second, many of the sources are outdated and could be replaced with more relevant ideas as the political sphere is rapidly evolving. Finally, the article could dive deeper and provide more examples of political communication in practice instead of just the United States, the United Nations, and the Middle East. This would develop the article even more and strengthen the discussion.