User:Cokelley710/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: (link) Identity management theory
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article to review because it is a theory associated with interpersonal communications, yet the article seems to be incomplete and could use review.  I may want to also choose it for the main assignment.  Additionally, this theory touches on intercultural communication, which is my research interest, so knowing this theory could help me down the line.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No. There is not a clear introductory sentence.  Instead this article rambles about the founders of the theory without actually defining the concepts.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No. This needs to be separated in to history, authors and theory.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is overly detailed, and does not flow well.  It is a mix of personal opinions and history of the authors.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead needs an overhaul. The content that is currently there is not clear or concise. There is no overarching definition for the term, and there is no outline of what will be discussed. Instead, there is a jumbled mix of personal opinions, and un-cited commentary on the theory.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? No. the content in this article does not align with the overall topic.  The author of this article outlines strategies, but does not define them, and does not give context to why they are included here.
 * Is the content up-to-date? No. The most recent article listed is from 2002.  There have been significant publications on this topic especially in usage since that time.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, both.  The content of this article needs an overhaul.  The stages of IMT need to be fleshed out within the content section, and also there needs to be examples of the theory in publications.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content of this article needs an overhaul. There is content in the lead that needs to be pulled down into the body, and there in content in the body that does not belong here at all.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral? No.  Author of the article uses "I" statements, and personal opinions within the article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.  Even the opinions given are not about the article, but about wikipedia.  They do not belong in this format.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is not enough viewpoints represented at all.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.  This article does not have enough information to substantiate an opinion on the topic.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, this is written more like a class assignment with personal narrative and opinion, rather than as an encyclopedia article. The author expresses personal opinions about why the topic should be in wikipedia. This needs to be edited out. Additional citations and uses of the theory need to be expanded so that there is balance.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? While there are sources listed, there are no inline citations, so it is unclear which sources were used for which information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No.  While the author did include the original source for this theory, there are many more sources that cite this original article that could be used to better explain this topic.
 * Are the sources current? No.  The most recent article listed is from 2002.  There have been significant publications on this topic especially in usage since that time.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links that are included in the article do work, but there are several other people/ concepts mentioned that need to be linked to.

Sources and references evaluation
As listed at the top of the article, "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations." The sources listed are unclear, and there are many terms/ people that could be linked to other sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No.  This article is jumbled and not easy to follow.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No. This article is jumbled and not easy to follow.  Sub-categories and headers would assist in the flow.

Organization evaluation
The organization of this article is one of the features that needs the most work. As written, it is hard to follow, or to really understand the definition of the concept.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


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

Images and media evaluation
There are no images used in this article.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The talk on the talk page agrees with my assessment that the content, organization and also lead all need work. All of the contributors on the talk page were enrolled in an intercultural communication class at Azusa Pacific University in 2013.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? I do not see a rating for this article.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This article does not clearly define the theory.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page gives insights to others who are interested in cleaning up this article, but no one has. The most recent contribution to the talk page is in 2013.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status? Overall, this article has been sitting in sad shape since 2009, and needs help with both the content and the structure.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article refers to the original journal article where this theory was founded.
 * How can the article be improved? The explanation of the theory, as well as its uses need to be made more clear.
 * 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, does not meet the standards set out by wikipedia and needs a total overhaul.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article needs a lot of work. The lead needs to be cleaned up, a table of contents needs to be created, and relevant content needs to be added to make this a worthwhile article. Additionally, for this class specifically, the article also needs to be tied back to relational communication through sources that use IMT in dyadic relationships.

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: