User:Dwfelice/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) The name of the wiki article I chose to evaluate is Interpersonal Deception Theory.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_deception_theory
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.  I chose to evaluate this article because it was a Wiki page that was rated as “Mid” importance, yet a “Start” article. Though initially started well, this page seems to have room for improvement. Of the Wiki articles related to Relational Communication that I researched, this article seems to be in the most need of help to move it forward to contribute to the knowledge in the field of Relational Communications.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The article Lead does contain an appropriate lead sentence, but it does not attribute a source of the theory.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead contains a contents block that includes the articles main sections, but not a brief description of those sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, in a descriptive definition of Interpersonal Deception Theory, the article gives examples of how intentional deception requires more cognitive exertion than truthful communications (with examples), but the article does not address this (or the examples) within the body of the material.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise and is limited to a definition of the theory, but it does not include the aforementioned brief description of the article’s major sections outside of the contents block insert.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The articles content is relevant to the topic of Interpersonal Deception Theory relating aspects of its theoretic perspective, history, propositions, experiments, criticisms, etc.
 * Is the content up-to-date? It does not seem that the content of this page is up-to-date. The last “Talk” entry was in 2014, so there is a potential need for some good content updating on this page.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? A section on a qualitative research study done on “Online Dating” seems out of place, not in that it is not relevant, but that there are no other sections where application of the theory in research that is mentioned.  A section titled “Experiment” taken from earlier cited authors is presented oddly. It is given a main heading equal to sections like “history, Propositions, criticisms, etc, and seems out of place.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral? The article seems to be presented in a neutral way, even devoting a section to criticism of the theory.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There does not seem to be any heavily biased positions in this article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? If anything, this article is underrepresented in viewpoints both pro and con for this theory. A great deal of the overall content is dedicated to explaining the theory – its history and substance – there could be more content advocating the theory as well as additional critical viewpoints.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?  The article presents an unbiased account of the theory and it’s propositions with a tip of the hat to some criticism of the theory. It does not attempt to persuade the reader one way or the other.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? One of the criticisms of this article is that it needs more primary and secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The referenced sources are good, but lacking in breadth – this is an area of needed improvement.
 * Are the sources current? The few sources used are relevant, however the most recent attribution is 2006. Updating and including any research on this theory would be an area of needed improvement for this article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The few links that do appear seem to work fine.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is concise, clear and easy to read, but does omit important information early on (who proposed the theory, when, and why).
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a number of places grammar, spelling and punctuation can be improved. This is noted on the “Talk” page as well.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is broken down into sections, but the sections are of un-equal importance and a little confusing. It is organized, but could be improved in its organization and presentation.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no accompanying images in this article.
 * Are images well-captioned? There are no accompanying images in this article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are no accompanying images in this article.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There are no accompanying images 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? There is very little discussion on the “Talk” page and the talks stopped in 2014. What talk there was regarded cleaning up the grammar and spelling on this page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated “Mid-importance” with a “Start-Class” quality and is within the Wiki scope of WikiProject Psychology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I’m not sure we have talked about this subject in class, so I apologize if I’m gone in a different direction for this article review.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status? There is much in this article that can be improved – it’s an article that needs some Relational Communication TLC.
 * What are the article's strengths? I think the topic of the article is very relevant to the larger areas of Relational Communication and Interpersonal Communication.
 * How can the article be improved? Overall the article needs citations and better links. In addition, the structure and organizational presentation can be improved and images can be added to enhance the presentation where there are currently none.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? From a Wiki article completeness perspective, I think there is more to like about this article than not to like. However, there is much room for improvement

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:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interpersonal_deception_theory