User:Ellamarrero/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Name of article: Instructional design
 * I have chosen to evaluate the Instructional design article because I am very interested in the topic, and have read various books relating to the subject (engineering psychology).

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 Lead has a strong introductory sentence clearly describing the article's topic. It lacks a brief description of the article's major sections, which would greatly help the article's structure.
 * The Lead is a little overly concise, it could do with more information regarding the topic's general background/major figures in the field. The Lead mainly just has a brief introduction for/definition of the field, and one sentence regarding a popularly used design model in the field.

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

 * A lot of content sourced from various places, but not fully fleshed out ideas as to why it is relevant to the topic. Examples include:
 * In the origins section under history, there isn't a strong link between behaviorism in psychology and its effect on instructional design.
 * Further explain what "The Conditions of Learning" by Robert Gagne is, it is unclear (a book? an article?) and said to be foundational to the discipline.
 * What training material failed that led Michael Scriven to suggest a "need for formative assessment"?
 * Who is Britain, why does he have the authority to explain what learning design is?
 * How does motivational theory apply to instructional theory? It needs a more extensive introductory paragraph.

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 is not entirely neutral. For example, at the end of the summary of Robert Gagné's work, the article discusses how the work is controversial, but concludes that it is generally helpful. This seems more biased towards accepting the work, and does not add anything informative to the article. If it were to be discussed, it should be discussed in more detail (why is it relevant to understanding instructional design?).

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

 * All facts have citations that seem reliable (i.e. journal articles, original materials, etc.)
 * All links I checked worked.
 * Sources are somewhat current, the page has not been updated since around 2018.

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 generally well written, with no grammatical/spelling errors, but the organization is a little hard to follow. It could do with a better structured general overview of the topics in the introduction.

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

 * The two images are relevant to the material, and somewhat enhance understanding of the topic.
 * Both images are user's own works, and hence both adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * The images are a little too small, but are not overly obtrusive in the page, and hence visually appealing. The page could use more images.

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

 * The article is rated as a C-Class by both WikiProject Education and WikiProject Psychology. This means that that it supplies general information, but is missing key elements that would make it useable for a more intense study.
 * This topic was not explicitly discussed in class, but is along the same theme as the class. Wikipedia takes a different approach to it in strongly describing its implementation and military roots, but not much about the reception of the field, or how the field changed what currently existed before it took over (e.g. how was training implemented before instructional design theory?).

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 a C-Class article. It does a good job of defining the field and explaining some of the origins, although it doesn't do the best job synthesizing how the key contributors shaped the field as a whole.
 * The article could be greatly improved with some organizational redesign, general introductory sentences in the lead, and flushing out some of the less explored details in the heart of the article.
 * This article is underdeveloped. It needs more information until it could be regarded as a good or informative article.

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:Instructional design