Talk:Fact Checking
Length
The current length of the article is roughly 2000 words, which doesn’t meet the 3000 words requirement. However, it is a decent length considering this is only a draft. There is a section relating to COVID-19 that is currently empty, and I think should contain enough materials to write about as it is an ongoing controversial topic. The sections for “Platforms” and “Hacked Content” appear to be noticeably shorter than the other sections, so adding more to those sections can also help improve the word count. Polishing these sections should be sufficient to meet the requirement by the deadline.
Structure
The article has an introduction section and a reference section, but it doesn’t have a section for ethical concerns. From the introduction section, the article provides a detailed summary of the issues as well as some factual data that connect to fact-checking, establishing why the topic is notable. I do think the last sentence of the first paragraph is an opinion and may require rewording to fit into a natural point of view. Unless this sentence is coming from a source, then specify where this opinion comes from. Otherwise, the introduction is well-written and cultivates interest in reading on. I like how the history section is divided in the article. The history section provides a short subsection on the rise of fact-checking and three detailed subsection sections on specific events. Although the pandemic section is empty, I think it’s a great choice to include this topic in the article. There are three images and a chart in the “Fact-Check Policies” section, meeting the one image requirement. These images and the chart are well organized and serve as a great component of the article. I recommend adding in an ethical concern section for a better structure, and some of the current sections can be reorganized as a subsection of the ethical section. The consequence section can be included in the ethical concern section as well as the last subsection. For the reference section, there aren’t URL links that can take me to the included sources. Judging from the name of the sources, they do appear to be reliable academic resources and mainstream news sources. However, adding hyperlinks for each online source can improve the reference section and allow people to read into more details. Aside from the lack of hyperlinks, the current format of the reference section is organized in an appropriate manner.
Clarity
The writing is clear in providing background to the readers unfamiliar with the topic. Putting the history section at the top helps the general flow of the article. The major sections of the article are divided into more concise sections, allowing readers to easily follow through the article. Wording can be adjusted better when bringing in outside sources. For example, rather than saying “Research shows,” which is a little vague, I think it will be better to just directly mention the name of the research or the name of the researcher. Since there isn’t a section titled ethical concerns, it is a little difficult to track the major ethical issues discussed in the article. Having an ethical concern section and making subsections will make it easier to identify immediately what sections correspond to ethical issues and what sections prepare the reader with background knowledge.
Objective reporting
Most of the sections of the article are presented objectively. However, the section for “Consequences of Fact-Checking” isn’t reporting from a natural point of view. This section might fit better as a conclusion for an essay with an arguable thesis but does not fit in the scenario of a wiki article. It might be better to use the style of bullet points to simply list out the consequences to avoid declaring opinionated statements. Bringing in more sources from different points of view can also improve the neutral tone of the article.
