Talk:Halo Effect Bias
Verify the length of the article and comment on it.
The length looks good! Fits draft requirements. When needing to add extra length for the final wiki, I would suggest expanding upon the media and political section with some examples/instances. In media, maybe include subheadings for different social media sites and add some examples per each? Just a suggestion! :-)
Does the article include the 3 major components of a good article? (1) an opening paragraph that summarizes the issue, 2) the body of the article in one or more sections, 3) statements are backed up by references to reliable sources. Elaborate on how the author met each component and how they can improve.
1. The opening paragraph could benefit from some shortening/sentence combining. To me right now it's reading more essay than wiki (not in a bad way! mostly notice because I'm trying to stray away from essay style as well, haha), which makes the summarization get a little lost in the anticipation for the wiki (if that makes sense?) since it's more "opening paragraph" style. A good quick way I recognized it could be shortened would be taking out one of the "for examples" you have listed - when I reached the second "for example" I felt more as though I was reading the main body of the paper than the summarization/intro. 2. Body and sections look good! The feedback I would give would go back to the paper vs. wiki writing style - citing your chosen studies in text and having a strong reliance on them is one example I found of this. I would suggest CNTRL + F-ing "researchers" and finding different ways to present some of the studies you included, or to include them together through your own Wiki voice (as opposed to writing through the voices of those researchers). I think a better way of saying that would be to spruce those sentences up by acting like you're the supreme expert on this subject, not that you're relaying the researcher's findings :-) 3. I know that you'll add the footnotes and specific citations and all that jazz for the final, so draft citations look good! Your sources all look official and credible. Maybe adding a couple of less "serious" citations to move from academic paper to wiki? I feel like "real" wikis I see online usually have some pretty unserious sources, haha.
Is the issue at stake clear to you? Do you understand what are the ethical issues exposed in the article and why they are important?
Yes! Issue is very clear and very well drawn out through the various subheadings. Great work here! The importance of said issues is also well highlighted.
Is the article reporting on ethical issues/controversies objectively? i.e., The author does not state personal opinions; if there are multiple stakeholders involved in a controversy, the author reports on multiple perspectives on the same issue; all statements are backed up by references; the author does not argue for anything, simply describes a controversy.
Good here as well! I think cleaning up some of the language will only further enhance a neutral perspective. I thought you did especially well in the social media section for being neutral, I feel as though it's hard to not speak assumptively for social media!
