User:Ikhan-rollins/Evaluate an Article

o   Which article are you evaluating?

§  History of Communication Studies

o   Why have you chosen this article to evaluate?

§  I believe that for a field to advance, it is imperative that we first know where the field began. In this case, knowing the history of communications study will benefit in the advancement of it. Learning from mistakes, building upon previous experience, and creating connections between several different fields of study is also possible by taking a look at the history of said study.

o   Evaluate the article.

§  Lead Section

·      Although the lead section does include an introductory sentence, there is not much beyond that. There is no mention of the major topics to be covered throughout the article. The lead section is a single vague sentence, which does not provide too much detail beyond the fact that the article is about the study of communication, rendering the lead section neither concise nor detailed.

§  Content

·      The content in the article is relevant to the topic, however, it is mainly focused on the United States through the 1900s and ends. There is a brief overview of the history of communication globally, but it is limited to pre-20^th century. The content seems to be up-to-date but the references list shows that the earliest reference used was from 2008, almost fifteen years ago- over which the field of communication studies has surely gone through advancements that should be considered as the “history” of the field of study. There is also a subsection dedicated to Germany towards the end of the article. Considering the article did not mention the history of communication studies throughout the world and involving various groups, I do not believe that it deals with the Wikipedia equity gaps.

§  Tone and Balance  

·      The article reads to be neutral with little to no claims that are biased towards any given positions. The viewpoints represented are mostly from western academics, which contextually does not present any biases since the article is mostly in context of western countries such as the US and Germany. As far as persuasion is considered, there is no ulterior agenda regarding the history of the study of communication to persuade towards, so no, I do not believe that the article attempts to persuade the reader of any one position over the other.

§  Sources and References

·      In the first section of the article (Pre-20^th Century), the first paragraph that discusses communication in ancient Greece and Rome, the European Middle Ages, and the renaissance and does not have any references besides links to other Wikipedia pages- the same goes for the second paragraph of the section. However, the rest of the article seems to be accurately sourced, albeit not by a diverse group of authors, the majority being white men. There are surely better articles that could be referenced and sourced, such as more recent, post-2008 articles.

§  Organization and writing quality

·      Other than the Lead section, the article is well-written and concise, and the information is easy to process. As far as I noticed, there were no distinct grammatical/spelling errors. The article is chronologically ordered, however, the insertion of communication studies in Germany towards the end seemed oddly placed and did not seem to be given as much relevance as the United States.

§  Talk page discussion

·      Most of the discussions on the talk page are not in favor of the article. Many people believe that the article is missing key components of the field and fails to mention important figures, additionally, there is a lack of focus on content. The article is apart of both the journalism portal and the society portal (WikiProject Media and Sociology respectively) and is rated a ‘start-class’ article on both quality scales.

§  Overall impressions

·      The article succeeds at delivering basic knowledge of communication studies in the United States, but beyond the general references, there are little to no opposing perspectives, or references sourced from marginalized/minority academics. The article can be improved by introducing more diverse perspectives on the history of communication studies and broadening it to include either communication studies in major nations, or just the western world. However, as the article is now, it should be retitled as “History of communication studies: United States”