User:Esthersssjy0120/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: Attribution (psychology)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * The reason why I chose this article is when I was looking for articles, I want to learn something maybe relating to my majors (psychology and communication), so I looked under communication studies ->communication theory ->interpersonal communication, and found attribution which seems to be related to both of my major, and I am interested to learn more about it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No the lead just focus on giving a brief introduction to the topic.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does include information that is presented in the article but i feel like there are something that can be added to the article too.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's definitely not overly detailed, but there are something that can be added in the lead too, such as some brief description of the articles' sections.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it is definitely relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The sources are not very old, the content are still valid, but definitely can find out if recent research on this theory has changed.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No basically every section is pretty relevant. I feel like this article does give a lot of information related to the attribution theory but maybe can add more just simple straightforward information about the theory itself.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Overall yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not really. It does give neutral explanation of sources.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I don't think they are overrepresented or underrepresented, it gives out fairly explanation related to the topic.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Not really.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes they are basically all from academic journal articles.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes most of them are. Some sources need to have full citation.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most them are fairly new (within 20 years) and some of them are from 1950s to 1990s. May editors can find more recent research to see if anything is changing.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Checked about 5 links and they work!

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It's not hard to read and it gives out a lot of examples to help understand. The sections are pretty clear to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Overall good grammar and spelling.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes it does break down to sections to talk about a few main things about the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No 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?
 * Maybe like how to explain this theory in a more simple but concise way, to help people understand it more clearly. It is a social psychology theory, which means that it can be related to our lifes better.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as C-Class. It is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We focus on content, organization and sources in class but it was interesting to see a section of the discussion saying that "difficult passage to edit" to me. It really gives me a clear sense of how discussion can be.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Definitely a lot need to be improved. The contents right now are not bad but more can be added.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Clear and easy understanding examples.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Add images, update resources, add more related information.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It's moderately developed.

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: