User:Bazookabird/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: Student development theories
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chose to evaluate this article because based on the information available on this page compared to what we have learned in this program there is significant contributions that could enhance the quality of this page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it is painfully short and does not encompass what these theories actually describe.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does not it is literally one sentence.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is definitely not detailed, but I would also not call it concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * For the most part the content is relevant to the topic, however it is not detailed and has some components which should be revised. Such as stating that a basic assumption of the student development movement is that the student has a personal responsibility to get educated.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The article does contain relevant information pertaining to Student Development Theories, however it lacks many newer theoretical frameworks outlined in our textbook. For example: there is no mention of Intersectionality ,Gender Theory of Student Development, or Race Theory of Student Development.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is a lot of content missing, I was shocked at how little there was in this topic. As previously mentioned, the article does not mention many of the theoretical frameworks we had looked at in EU 540. I do not feel that there is any "irrelevant" content however much of it is worded poorly, such as using "you" as if the article is directed at the reader which is not supposed to be the case for Wikipedia articles.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * I believe it is fairly neutral, it does not appear to be pushing a particular agenda.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I did not notice any in the article, however the lack of information on some of the mentioned topics does make it seem skewed, but I feel this is a lack of input rather than an actual author bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes, the quality of the work between the different theories is drastically different. The section on Sanford's Theory of Challenge and Support is much more well written than Kolb's Theory of Experiential Learning. The article also states in the category section of theories that student development process models can be divided into abstract or practical, but then does not really describe what that means.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I do not think it is intentional, but the quality of work is varied between theories which could persuade an individual. Three of the four theories described in this article are formatted more around bullet points, whereas one is formatted as paragraphs and includes study examples with findings. However, I do feel this section of the article went too in depth and missed the point of what a Wikipedia article is for.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, some are to University websites which do not actually state the information that is reported on Wikipedia. For example: The first reference does not take you to any of the information that it is used as a reference for. The whole history section is quoted using this and it takes you to University of Dallas website with a small section on undergraduate education at that institution.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Most of the sources are older, however the third reference is to our Student Development in College textbook in its current edition, however the second reference is to its 1998 edition so it should be updated.
 * Are the sources current?
 * As stated above, one of the sources is current but the rest are 8 or more years old.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Links appear to be working.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is obvious that there were multiple authors. Although the points given for the most part a concise the lack of continuity of writing style makes it feel messy. For example, three of the four theories are formatted around bullet point explanations of theories and one is paragraph style.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I noticed when I read the article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is broken down into the major points I would expect from the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There are no images

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is no conversation going on behind the scenes as to how to represent this article. There are also very few edits as there was only one minor edit in 2019.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology and WikiProject Universities. It has a rating of "Start".
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is no talk for me to comment on the difference in the way it is discussed.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article is rated as a Start and I agree with this. When I investigated the WIkiProject Universities section I noticed that the majority of articles on this topic do not exceed this ranking. This article is supported by the Student Affairs task force.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * This article has the fundamentals of some of the theories involved in the field.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article can be improved substantially by the inclusion of more information from some of the sources that it already cites. Including other theoretical frameworks, redoing the history section with actual references, and making the article more cohesive in structure would help elevate this to a C rating.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article is poorly developed at the moment, but can be improved with some work and some revision.I would not consider it underdeveloped at the moment as it is missing a lot of significant components.

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: