· Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Yes. The photo of a Journalism ID card on the right hand of the screen is distracting.
· Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This article is neutral. It focuses on the technical aspects of a press release. It does not appear to be biased.
· Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The section on ‘Effects of press releases’ does not contain very much information; they could have gone into further detail. They also could have removed that section as a whole, as it did not add much to the article.
· Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Yes, the links work and are applicable to the article.
· Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
The facts included in this article are appropriately referenced. The article does contain opinion as to the positives and negatives of press releases. For example, calling the distributed media ‘boring’ under the section listing negatives. It was a very fact based article and got straight to the point.
· Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
All of the information is up to date and relevant. However, more information on the effects of press releases should be added. Maybe a link to an example of a very important or significant press release that we have seen this year.
· Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
There is not very much going on in this articles talk page. I see one edit from 2017 that makes some great points about further expounding on their points. They go into detail about relevance of news releases and add to the section “Critiques of Press Releases”.