User:Allylynch1/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article:
 * Focus group
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate:
 * This is my chosen methodological topic for our Advance Qualitative Research course.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, within the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, within the side bar boxes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise, not too overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, it was last edited on January 20, 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The two sections of "United States Government" and "Art" seemed odd. The sections discuss examples of how these two topics have incorporated focus groups but it still seems a bit random. Perhaps more content surrounding transcribing, question development and choosing participants might be helpful, although it may be too specific for this page. They may want to add two types of focus groups: nominal and Dephi, as well as exploratory, phenomenological and clinical. The types of groups can be a bit too specific like "Bank Obsessive Group" per a certain topic when maybe they should leave the types a bit more broad.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, but it does feel a bit business-heavy and not much mention of research methodology.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, just certain topics that are a bit too focused. See answer above.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not all, but the majority.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are majority focus group related and qualitative research heavy with focuses on sociology, data analysis, business research, and focus group discussion.
 * Are the sources current?
 * For the most part. They range from 2018 back to 1946, The majority of sources are from the 21st century so yes, they are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes. Although, there were 3 books cited whose ISBN number was hyperlinked incorrectly (not sure if it needed to be hyperlinked at all).

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. An image would be a nice addition.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I could see.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. Just the last two of United States Government and Art were random and perhaps more constructs that use focus groups should be listed or none at all.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images/not applicable.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images/not applicable.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No images/not applicable.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * I'm not sure there are any Talk pages on this one but there are archived discussions. These discussions focused on the article being too narrow and the over emphasis on marketing/business. The mention of online groups or panels that, according to one editor, deserves its own page. They also talk about lack of a few references/citations in certain places as well as saying words like "essential" is too strong and should be replaced with "important". There is another discussion about the relevance of certain information and if it should be included or not.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * WikiProject Business rated it of mid-importance, WikiProject Human-Computer Interaction rated it of mid-importance, and WikiProject Marketing & Advertising rated it of top importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't talked about it in class, yet, but based on the Talk section, the article could use some help and more edits. I would also rate it as mid-importance from what I'm gathering of that rating.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall, the article is of mid-importance to many.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The strengths are the introduction, outline, types of focus groups, data analysis and problems and criticism. Those sections are written fairly well. The "use in disciplines" section is helpful but too short if they are going to focus on disciplines. The list of exercises is useful.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Be more inclusive of other sectors that use focus groups often (such as education, the medial field, research). The history is a bit too short and I wonder if any more information can be found on this. The list of types could be extended to be more inclusive as it is too business-heavy. Discussions could be expanded to include issues of ethics, cultural differences, various backgrounds of participants, etc. The topics of US Government and Art are just too random and either need to be expanded to include other things or deleted all together.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think the article is fairly underdeveloped because it exclusively discusses focus groups in business-related issues like marketing, as well as the government and art. Focus groups are used for so many other things. It needs more information, more examples, more types of focus groups. The article has been reviewed/touched/edited by over 500 users since 2007 so it clearly has been edited quite a few times but I think it just needs more attention.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: User talk:129.63.99.3