User:Dalia SeifAllah/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Self-efficacy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I am currently working on a study that aims to measure the difference of self-efficacy levels before and after Wikipedia writing. Because I am trying to delve more into self-efficacy and cognitive theory, I found it very effective to integrate my current work with Wikipedia writing.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Ø Overall, the article tackles listening as a general skill that functions well as a tool of cognitive, psychological, communicative, and linguistic growth.

Ø  However, the article does not represent a content gap or underrepresented subjects such as rhetorical listening.

Ø  Although the writers touched on the subject of listening as a tool of solving conflicts and eradicating misrepresentation, they had not discussed rhetorical listening as a tactic originated for the same purpose.

Ø  Some information has not been fully developed in the article, such as listening anxiety and its negative impact on second language acquisition.

Ø  The image is poorly captioned and does not include the character’s name and event.

Ø  The writers missed the neutrality in some parts and used irrelevant pronouns, e.g., “active listening allows for us to present in conversation,” “the more we understand, the more connection we create.”

Ø  The article history demonstrated a thoughtful collaboration and efforts over almost 2 years.

Ø  The article is well cited. The information is verified via using scholarly and secondary sources.

Ø  The article is well balanced; however, the sections can be more cohesive and iterative.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Overall, the article is well-written and well-developed. The article has a clear overview for the self-efficacy theory. However, I have some comments on the content that include but not limited to: ￼

There is a lack of coherence in the first part in the article. Three different theories are listed without explaining their relationship to self-efficacy and its founder Bandura, in a way that may cause confusion for the readers.

There is an overreliance on Bandura's perceptions to the theory without referring to the other fathers, such as Maddux, who wrote very important book about self-efficacy.

The section of self-efficacy sources is not complete, while the section of factors influence self-efficacy replicates this section of sources. It seems to me that editors built this new section to explain the factors/ sources instead of improving this old section and completing it.

The part of over-officiousness is not developed, as well as the self-efficacy writing section. ￼

There is a lack of empirical studies (the language is concise and serves well for the Wikipedia, but more studies can be included). ￼

The article seems new to the Wikipedia. It has a very short history of edit and collaboration, so many improvements are predicted for this article. ￼

The article's sections vary in its length, so editors can work on making more balanced sections. ￼

Other sections in this article are highly developed such as classifications and distinctions that offers distinctive definitions for similar beliefs that may visit readers' minds and confuse them.

The article clearly stated the linkage between self-efficacy and the other fields and disciplinaries, with a clear emphasize on the role the theory played in these field and various studies. ￼

The article has good citations.

The article has a clear neutral and concise language.

Feedback from Vetter
Hello - Great work on this article evaluation of self-efficacy. It's a good article to work on for this assignment because of how it matches the research project we're doing, as well as because of the obvious developmental needs it demonstrates. Your evaluation is really thorough. I especially appreciated how you noticed the over-reliance on Bandura as well as the lack of coherence and distinction between the three different theories. I think some organizational and extra information about each of these (or even separating them into different sections would be really useful. About the over-reliance on Bandura, this will take some addition of other theorists (and perhaps more recent ones to balance it out). I wouldn't necessary encourage you to remove Bandura as a first option.

Both of these would be great starting places for your editorial work.

Just keep in mind that you don't need to take the article to any kind of "final version" - the assignment requirements are


 * Minimum of 4 references cited and added to Wikipedia article
 * Minimum of 300 words added to Wikipedia article

I'm excited to see what you will do with this article. Keep in mind that a draft of your edits is due on Oct. 4.

-DarthVetter (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)