User:ODSez/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Social presence theory: (link)
I chose to evaluate this article because I find it both intriguing and relevant to understand the symbiotic relationship between media and how it shapes our culture and how we conduct ourselves as a society.

The article does a good job of defining what is social presence theory, but does not dive further on what this means for purposes of understanding the concept today. Prior reviewers have flagged this article as lacking quality standards and in need of cleanup. There is no flow from the main sentence to the rest of the article that can help lead one to make the connections on the topic.

I liked how the article was broken down into various components and given numerous references. There seemed to be a lack of cohesion in the middle of the article where it transitioned from key concepts to classification of media and also towards the end after the conclusion in a section titled "Attentional Social Presence." I believe this should have been inserted in the middle of the article or given its own Wiki page with a link as reference.
I did not find anything in the Lead that would lead me to look beyond what was posted and felt that it was lacking in some qualitative components. Even though a definition for social presence was provided along with a historical context, there was no real substance to the point that was brought up in the introduction. Hence, it was lacking in depth on social presence as the article kept it high level and void of any details that would give the reader a better understanding of how it worked.

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?

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

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?
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?

What is the article's overall status? The article's overall status is a work in progress. It appears a prior Wiki user found there to be too many quotes from an encyclopedia and therefore in need of revisions.
What are the article's strengths? The strengths of the article are in the various examples given to support the main point on how media shapes culture. There are scholarly articles referenced as well as books on the subject of mass media.
How can the article be improved? The first place to begin improving this article is by revising the lengthy list of quotes and condensing them to a handful of salient points. Another would be to add greater clarity on the point of "culture" as it relates to media influence. Culture has multiples definitions and, therefore, requires greater definition in an academic article. There seems to be examples of media influencing culture when referencing television, radio and consumer products. But the main point of what culture truly is within the context of media influence is not clear.
How would you assess the article's completeness i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped in my opinion. Several revisions requested by prior Wiki users have not been completed and there seems to be a lack of cohesion in the main thrust of media influence in shaping culture. ~~~~

Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~