User:Fountinz/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Name of article: Interpersonal communication
 * I chose this article to evaluate because it relates to the course I'm studying, which is international communications.

Lead
The Lead begins with the definition on "interpersonal communication", which is great. However, it could be more specific and concise in the first paragraph. It does include a brief description of the article's major sections.

Content
The article's content is relevant and is pretty up-to-date (the last reference was made in 2019 and the latest source used was from 2016).

Content evaluation
This content is heavily based on the theories and studies of interpersonal communication.

Tone and Balance
The article is pretty neutral and fact-based. It is mainly from a scholastic point of view, but it is deeply focused on theories.

Sources and References
All the facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary source of information. The sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic but most of them are not too current. The links work.

Organization
The beginning of the page (or the lead) could be more concise and clear. There are certain descriptions of the theories that are also less concise and harder to read. The article is organized well into its subheadings.

Images and Media
The images are all related and provide insight about the topic. They are well-captioned, because they give a short description of the meaning of the image in relation to the topic and the source it is from. The communication diagram is a bit too small to read, so it would be more visually appealing if that image could be enlarged.

Checking the talk page
The article is part of three WikiProjects, and it is rated as C-Class. The main conversations about this article are other readers criticizing certain parts of the information and organization. We haven't gone as deep into interpersonal communications in this article as we did in class, so on the basis of my extremely limited knowledge, Wikipedia does not discuss this topic differently than we've had in class.

Overall impressions
Overall, the article is okay. It is separated into organized sections, however certain sections could be a bit more clear and concise. Since I don't have enough knowledge about this topic, I cannot fully assess the article's completeness, because I'm not sure of what it is missing.