User:Trobins6/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?

Information and media literacy - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because it relates to my course subject, but it's a slightly more specific aspect of that subject. I actually wanted to find a page about social media literacy, but there was no page like that. This was the closest I could find. Apparently there are several problems with this page, according to the box at the top of the article. It is missing citations, written in an unprofessional manner, etc. I thought the article was fine on first read through.

Evaluate the article

I appreciate that the article did not focus exclusively on the United States; rather, it also mentioned Asia, the UK, the "Arab world," and Canada. There wasn't much information on some of these other places, but I still appreciated the more global focus.
Some of the writing was a little biased or opinionated, for example: "Contrary to the earlier stereotype of the isolated and awkward computer nerd, today's wired kid is a social kid." There is a citation after this sentence, but if it's a quote from a source, it should be in quotation marks. If it's the author's opinion, it probably shouldn't be included, even though it's a very interesting sentence.
I think all of the information in the article is good and stays on topic; however, I think the title could be changed to better reflect the content. The article is mainly focused on education and digital natives' media literacy, specifically in schools.
I was appalled that only one of seven linked citations I followed worked. All the others gave me 404 messages.
There is some discussion on the Talk page. Some people had suggested merging this page with other similar pages.
It is rated Start level with mid-importance and within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics. I think it should be part of communication, not linguistics.