User:Bua327/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Name of article: (Labeling theory)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * As I looked through articles within the interpersonal communication sphere, I came across the labeling theory wikipedia article. Having only minor knowledge surrounding this theory, I thought it would be interesting and insightful to evaluate this article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

On the first reading of the Lead, I was a bit unsure of what labeling theory completely entailed. It seemed that some information could be missing and that some information needed to be explained a bit more in detail. However, when looking at the article in its entirety, the Lead provides just enough information to intrigue and educate the reader without giving away too much information. The following major sections shed light onto what the theory fully encapsulates.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead includes a brief overview of the topic as well as a brief history of its origination and contexts.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Although the Lead doesn't include a description of the article's major sections in paragraph form, there is a chart beneath it that links to the different major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all information mentioned in the Lead is expounded upon in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is quite concise. I was surprised by how brief and concise it was, but the rest of the article aided in this as well.

Content

 * Guiding questions

There are parts of the article's content that are relevant to the topic. However, there are some instances when the author provides too much detail and too much extraneous information regarding theorists that does not pertain to labeling theory. Overall, the content was insightful and educational, but didn't always seem to pertain to the article's topic of the theory. It focused more primarily on what deviance is rather than how it contributes to the labeling theory.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The majority of the content is relevant to the topic, but there are times when it seems the author provides too much follow up on a theorist.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Some of the content is up-to-date. The theorists detailed in the article are all from the 1900s. To freshen up the article and maintain its relevancy, further research (i.e. from the 2000s) on labeling theory in light of current events would significantly aid in the article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Similar to the dating of the content, additional content surrounding labeling theory in todays society would be pertinent to this article. In light of protests, the Black Lives Matter Movement, and current state of our politics, additional current data and research would provide a great deal of insight into this theory.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I was a bit surprised that particularly in 'the criminal' section, no mention of race was mentioned. It has been shown that there is racial injustice and racial profiling especially in the criminal justice sector which would contribute to labeling theory. That population should be represented and talked about in that section.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral. All of the subsections included research based and neutral points regarding the labeling theory as well as the researchers that were studied.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the statements and information provided in the article remain neutral and the author did not include their opinion on the theory in the article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, all of the claims are purely historical and factual regarding the researchers and theories that are presented.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes. As the article talked about the criminal, the mentally ill, and the homosexual as it pertains to labeling theory, each was unequally represented. The author provided a lot more insight and details surrounding the mentally ill while the criminal and the homosexual received little attention. Finally, the modified labeling theory provided little information as well.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, I believe since this article focused primarily on the theory and its researchers, the author was able to stay more neutral by only providing information rather than trying to persuade the reader one way or another.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Parts of the article includes multiple cited sources that are correctly hyperlinked. However, one of the beginning sections doesn't have any cited sources--it only links to other wikipedia articles. As I read through it, I wasn't distracted by the information until I came across the link to Walter Gove that is non existent. After that broken link, there were a few parts that were marked with 'citation needed' or with quotes that are not cited at all. However, the information was mostly relevant and educational. It would benefit the article if additional current sources were also incorporated.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Almost all of the facts are backed by a reliable secondary source of information. There are some sources that are missing links or citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * In addition to linking the sources to wikipedia pages, the author also incorporates different works and literature that was created on the topic of labeling theory.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Somewhat. A lot of the sources range from the early 1900s to 1990s. It would help if some literature from 2000-2020s were also provided on the current state of labeling theory and how it has advanced and changed since its origination.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors if we are taking into account the different countries they are all from. There is a lack of representation and information from people of color.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they work. The only ones that don't work are the ones that link a name to a non existent page.

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The organization of this article is done very well. The lead gives a good brief overview of the theory and then dives into the various theorists who helped create it while providing an end section on how the theory works in various contexts (i.e. the mentally ill, the criminal, and the homosexual). It starts broad and then narrows down into the finer details of the topic.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is formatted very well to provide readability and concision for its readers.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, in my time reading the article I could not find any grammar or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. It is structured to introduce the theorists responsible for the culmination of the theory and then dives into how the theory has evolved over the years and in various contexts. There is a bit too much information for some of the theorists, but overall the article is very well organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There is only one image in the article and it doesn't overtly enhance the topic. Rather, it focuses on the criminally ill section and theories within the penal system. It would've been helpful to have additional images or graphs that provide more insight into the theory as a whole.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Only one image is used in the whole article. I don't believe that it enhances the topic as it mostly links to other places rather than focusing on the labeling theory.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No, no caption was used on the image.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes. I am still learning all the facets of Wikipedia, but as far as I can tell the image adheres to the copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No. Since it mostly linked to other pages, it didn't draw me into the material. Since it was also over halfway down the page, I did not find it especially visually appealing.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The talk page focused mostly on the differences between 'labelling' and 'labeling theory.' There were quite a few suggestions that ended up being reflected in the article as well. The suggestions and critique were taken seriously and greatly added to the article as a whole.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The conversations on the talk page pertained more to the difference between 'labelling' and 'labeling theory.' At times, there was some talk regarding incorporating pop culture references to the article, but that doesn't currently exist in the article itself. There was also some debate regarding who the founding theorist was for the theory, but it was resolved and added to the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as a C-Class on the quality scale and rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. It is also part of the WikiProject Psychology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This topic hasn't been discussed primarily in this class yet, but I did briefly learn about it in a previous class in this program. While this article was more focused on the theorists who helped create the theory, all of my previous discussions focused primarily on what the theory was and how it relates to various contexts today.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

At first glance, I believed the article to be well-done and quite comprehensive. However, after reading the talk page and seeing what other editors have contributed, I see that there is still quite a bit of work to be done on this article. By adding more relevant sources and incorporating additional information on the theory rather than focusing on the theorists, the article would improve.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * One editor notated that the article should achieve 'good status.'
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths lean more towards the knowledge and research pertaining to the theorists themselves. There is a multitude of information on those sections.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * If more information were added that pertain to the theory itself, I believe the article could greatly improve. Additionally, one section needs to include citations rather than just linking to other wikipedia pages.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is well developed, but I think it could be further developed by adding more current sources as well. Any references that pertain to the 2000s would help make the article more relevant and substantiated in discussion.

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: