User:Charlisomers/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.


 * Organizational Communication:Organizational communication
 * This topic was most closely related to my course study.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence in this article was very concise and clear in describing what the following article would be addressing.There was a table of contents right below the introductory sentence that outlined the general topics that would be discussed. The discussion regarding the major sections were addressed in the introduction of each major section. The table of contents just named them. The lead does not provide information that is not in the article. It addressed what the study of organizational communication is and that it can be formal or informal, which are later explained in further detail within the article. The lead is very concise in that it is two short sentences.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article's content was very specific to the topic. It was not drawn out and did not attempt to make far reaching connections to make the article longer. It discussed the background, the structure, theories and research regarding the topic without getting off base. The content was up-to-date, not so much the references. The most recent edit to the page occurred on 9/7/19. The references used still provided current information or information that was needed to create a background to see where the research has came. The oldest reference used was from the 50's, however, there was also references from publishing's from 2015. I did not feel there was any content that did not belong, I felt everything had a tie in to the article and making the article what it was. I am sure there is probably content missing from the article, however, being that I am in my first semester of study, I personally did not feel that the article was lacking anything to be a brief overview.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article remained neutral. Any claims that may have been perceived as biased or one-sided, such as specific approaches or theories, were used in reference and quoted the individual who made the claim or owned the research. The article itself does not portray any one way of thinking. It reflects the facts very well. Within the research body, I felt that I would have liked a little more information on the various designs. However, I also appreciated the brevity. I do not feel any viewpoints were over represented, which I believe goes back to the above statements that the contributors did a great job with just hitting the points and remaining neutral. Most often when viewpoints are over represented, it is a reflection of the author trying to sell that point, in my opinion. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader, however, this is not a topic where a certain viewpoints or theory is being portrayed, but an overall study instead.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The facts were backed up to what appear to be reliable sources. There is a list of references as well as associations, external links and further reading. I do feel that additional citations might be needed. Many of the references do not have an actual link, and the ones that do often connect you to another school's database that without a school login, you cannot access. However, they are cited in a way that you could find and access the articles or resources yourself if you wished. The links to the associations just take you to that associations Wikipedia page. The further readings are just listed and do not have links, which is fine, I assume they can probably be purchased if someone so chooses. The external links take you to various associations general web page. It is not directly linked to any resources or reference to the article. The sources, as stated above, are fairly current. The most current being from 2015, however, the page was edited as recently as this month. Of the 11 resources linked, 5 were from the 2000's, 1 from the 50's, 1 from the 60's 2 from the 70's, 1 from the late 90's and 1 that was undated. I would suggest these editors find more up-to-date research and references. Only a few links actually take you somewhere, several are not hyperlinked at all. The ones that are take you to school's databases.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is a very easy read. It is clear and concise. I did not pick up on any grammatical or spelling errors. The organization of the article makes sense and flows appropriately. It does not jump around and it does not attempt to make unnecessary connections or go off on limbs.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
No images were used within this article, however, I did not feel that an image would help me understand the article. It is noted on the talk page that someone has requested an image be used for better understanding.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There were a few conversations on the talk page. Not all the postings were dated, but the ones that were, it appears no dialogue has occurred since 2013. In 2013, there was a suggestion to remove or fix a component within the "early underlying assumptions" section. This was noted in another conversation as well. This suggestion was not acted on and does leave a poorly worded, repetitive sentence within the article. There were 2 questions regarding if the article was too detailed. It is apart of the WikiProject Organizations and is rated as Start-Class for quality and Mid-importance for importance. It is slightly a different view of what we discuss, however, it does refer to networks and interpersonal relationships as we have seen in our readings in much of the same context.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article is not verified and requires additional citations to become verified. The strengths of this article are the flow of the article, the conciseness of the article and the neutral approach. It provides strict reference to a scholar or a theory/approach rather than indicating the authors/contributors view or take on the topic. The article can be improved by adding citations. It can be improved by referencing more up-to-date knowledge or research. With the expansion and focus of communication studies, I feel that newer research and references are accessible. I think the article is well-developed. I think it could be more developed as mentioned in areas previously, but if someone were just looking for a base overview (like many of us are when we quickly google or wikipedia something), it is sufficient.

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: Talk:Organizational communication  (last comment at the bottom)