User:Noveljams/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]
Audience
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit]
The Audience is imperative to communications and media. Without an audience who are you communicating with or providing information to? This article interested me because of the importance of the audience to all things media related.
Evaluate the article[edit]
Evaluate an Article
LEAD SECTION: The lead section seems to have multiple ideas to convey and not a concise clear idea regarding the topic. The first 3 paragraphs read like completely different ideas to be discussed in articles of their own.
While the lead section does provide a brief description of the audience it dissolves into multiple concepts across different mediums and theories.
CONTENT: First off I don’t believe the article addresses any of Wikipedia’s equity gaps nor does it address historically underrepresented populations.
The content of the article may be relevant but how it is formatted and how the author(s) go about discussing the topic is disjointed and confusing. Is this an article about what an audience is and does and examples of audiences or is this a discussion of audience theory? It is confusing at the least.
It is hard to tell what is missing or what is not up to date because there is not one specific idea being discussed in this article.
TONE AND BALANCE: The article seems to have a neutral point of view and make attempts to provide viewpoints and examples of minority groups. There are no biased claims or particular positions that I can ascertain from the article, and there is not attempt to be persuasive.
SOURCES AND REFERENCES: While the article is confusing and disjointed all the sources and references utilized within do support the information discussed in the article.
ORGANIZATION AND WRITING QUALITY: The article is not poorly written however it is not clear, concise, or well-organized. There seems to be a numerous concepts and ideas trying to be shared under one single word, Audience.
I did not immediately note any blaringly obvious spelling or grammatical errors.
IMAGES AND MEDIA: There are a few images showing visual examples of ideas or events listed in the text. They are not necessarily imperative to the content however they provide some sort of visual context to what is being discussed however many of them seem to be an afterthought and do not provide any real perspective to the topic of the article.
TALK PAGE DISCUSSION: This article has been selected for improvement twice 30 Sept 2013 and again on 28 Oct 2019. There does not seem to be any current discussions or communications in general on the articles Talk Page. The most recent discussion was archived in 2017 and it was a citation update as well as an unanswered question on whether players of a game are actually audience members.