User:CurranL/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: Communication Studies (Communication studies)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article for the purpose of the "Evaluating a Wikipedia Article" assignment. Additionally, I am currently studying the field of communications, so this article aligns with my discipline.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes "Communication studies or communication sciences is an academic discipline that deals with processes of human communication and behavior, patterns of communication in interpersonal relationships, social interactions and communication in different cultures."
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There can always be more information to be added, but, for the sake of brevity, no.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It does discuss intercultural and cultural research

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * 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? There are various citations
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are many cited sources from different times in history
 * Are the sources current? Some, but some are old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There are both men and women cited.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * 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? Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? They mention that the article is vague and requires more research to be verified.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Not sure
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Closes the field of comms off into a strict definition.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Not thorough
 * What are the article's strengths? Brevity
 * How can the article be improved? More research with a larger variety of authors (different groups)
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? (Underdeveloped)

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: