User:Genmarie/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:Interpersonal communication
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose this article because it is a core foundation of what we are studying, and one that is likely a strong enough article that it will not need a lot of editing. Because of those facts, I am both getting some foundational knowledge for the course and seeing what a fairly successful wiki article looks like for when we create/edit our own.

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 first two sentences of the article are definitely concise and encompassing of the topic. The rest of the lead is slightly disappointing. You can clearly tell there are multiple authors with very different voices and explanation styles. The information seems a little redundant and all over the place. The information is also not very relevant to the article's major sections and is sort of overly detailed for a summary. It could definitely use some cleaning up, which I didn't expect.

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
There is obviously a lot of content in the article, and I say obviously just because the topic is so broad and established. Some of the content is a little more fleshed out than other aspects that have roughly the same importance to the overall topic, but that may be reflective of the level of interest of the authors. Overall it is well dispersed and divided, and all relevant for the most part. A few sections could do with a little more indication of how it reflects or is relevant to interpersonal communication overall, but with context it is fairly understandable regardless. I am not well-versed enough with the subject to honestly know if anything is missing, but everything makes enough sense and there is enough material to assume it is all well chosen and thorough.

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
There is not much debate one way or another in the article, so it stays neutral fairly easily. All of the theories are discussed from a research standpoint and none are made to seem more relevant or important than the others. As I said before, a few of the theories have more information represented than others, but that may be from a larger wealth of information and studies than a particular inclination towards one or another. The amount of sourcing throughout is fairly even so I don't feel like it is an intentional lean one way or another. Some of the content also have articles of their own, so the content within this article is kept brief, which attributes some to the uneven structure.

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
Not all of the sources for the article have well developed citations, although those that do highly outweigh those that don't. Most of the sources are relevant, although some are slightly unexpected (such as journals on nursing). However, even though they are not expected, the information is still relevant and understandable choices, if a little biased towards one particular explanation/example that seems a bit heavily placed (like a hospital environment). The sources used all vary in age and topic, with probably 60-70% being published ten or more year ago, and the remaining being fairly recent and nearly all seem reliable, usually journal or research based articles.

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
I feel like the fact that I have an English degree makes this particular judgement a little more difficult. I can find plenty of things I would change if I were being precise, but overall the meaning and layout is concise and understandable. The article is certainly not poorly-written, but I don't know if my idea of well-written would be the same as what is expected. It is not text-book level, editor-checked-and-published quality, but it far from social-media-opinion-post poor that it could easily have been. There were not any obvious spelling errors or glaring grammatical errors at all! Mostly just structural slips and some sentences that could be better placed. I'm not sure if the content order is organized the best that it could be, but it is not bad. Personally I would probably restructure everything a little to make more sense topically and focus some on the ways in which the information relates and flows.

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
There were six images in the article, and only two that I felt were either unnecessary or poorly chosen. The first was of a handful of people holding some sort of ball, and they seemed to be passing it around. The photo was captioned as "an image depicting individuals understanding the context of the situation and taking the necessary precautions because of it", which sort of summarizes what they were doing in the photo and how it pertained to the article, but it was still initially confusing, so I feel it was ultimately unneeded. The second was a pie chart that was overly simple and not well cited. The information could have easily been understood and seemed less unnecessary in the sentence, and didn't enhance the topic in any way. All of the images, including those I didn't feel were needed, had proper captions and none appeared to violate copyright. They are all dispersed through the article in a non-imposing manner as well.

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 talk page for this article overall seems to be a series of evaluations of certain portions and suggestions for change from users who either do not have the want to or time to do it themselves or simply want to urge others to alter their own work. There is a lot of opinion and observation, and very little substance in some parts, while others are giving specific suggestions and critiques. It seems to have been worked on by a number of different students for course assignments similar to ours. A number of nursing students were assigned to edit/evaluate it as well, which explains the heavy hospital content in some areas. In one section, the article is evaluated overall as well-written but it notes that it is rated C-status with mid-level importance. There is also an interesting conversation between two editors on changes that were being made without explanation and the reasoning behind asking for details on why the changes were made that was fairly insightful to read when it comes to understanding why certain editing procedures are done.

Overall 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
I feel like overall, the article is well-developed and a good starting point for understanding the topic. It explains some relevance of interpersonal communication to life in general, while also going into many of the different theories and researches on the topic. It provides a wealth of sources for further research and despite a few structural and flow problems, is very educational and fairly well-written. It could use a little more organization and media, and the overall flow of writing certainly could be cleaned up to make the reading experience more fluid and less choppy, with a good bit more focus on properly summarizing the topic overall and moving some of the less general information from the lead into the content. However, this is just my opinion as a first time evaluation and that may change after working on an article in depth.

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: