User:Byjaredbrown/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]GateHouse Media was a noteworthy player amid a wave of U.S. newspaper consolidations and media business mergers between 2010 and 2019. GateHouse Media itself then merged with Gannett, one of the largest local newspaper chains in the United States. However, the existing Wikipedia article does not mention GateHouse Media's controversial business strategies for operating newspapers.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead section
[edit]The introductory paragraph for this article is succinct and informational. However, this paragraph makes up the entire lead section. Other than GateHouse Media's total media ownership and merger with Gannett, it does not provide an overview of the rest of the article's sections, such as the company's original name or bankruptcy.
Content
[edit]The current article content is relevant and up to date, as GateHouse Media merged with Gannett 2019 and rebranded under the Gannett name.
However, the article is missing context that puts GateHouse Media's acquisitions and media ownership in perspective. The company's practices around acquiring and operating newspapers were heavily criticized by experts. Additionally, the company's merger with Gannett was a complicated and controversial endeavor not reflected by the current article material. It makes one mention of the new Gannett company being the largest U.S. newspaper chain but does not include information about potential implications for the U.S. media ecosystem.
Tone and Balance
[edit]At face value, this article reads as incredibly neutral. It makes no claims and does not take a position. But based on the fact that it includes none of the fierce criticism of the company, readers will take away a more favorable opinion of the company than if the article contained the full breadth of viewpoints and expert analysis.
Sources and References
[edit]This article's sources are largely comprised of news reports solely about the company's acquisitions and mergers. One source, GateHouse Media's former official website, is no longer active. A number of sources do include analysis of the company and its practices but this information is not included in the Wikipedia article. This article would also benefit from the inclusion of academic sources related to media studies as well as perspectives from communities whose local newspapers were acquired by GateHouse Media.
Organization and writing quality
[edit]This article is concise and organized to the point of reading like a timeline as opposed to an encyclopedia. Additionally, the language around mergers and acquisitions, due to the numerous company's and jargon, in the article is also rather confusing and should be considered for copyediting.
Images and Media
[edit]The article includes one image of GateHouse Media's former logo in a fact box. The article might benefit from images and charts in the body content that show the company's acquisitions and growth over time.
Talk page discussion
[edit]Wikipedia editors make note that this article is confusing and needs updating but there is no conversation about how to address this. The revision history reflects some disagreement between editors.
It is rated as a C-Class article and is a part of the WikiProject Journalism articles.
Overall impressions
[edit]This article provides a good starting point for a fuller representation of GateHouse Media. It is succinct and provides no obvious information that needs to be removed. Further academic sourcing and analysis of the company would take the article from underdeveloped to well-developed.