User:Irishkimchi246/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.


 * Organizational communication: Organizational communication
 * I chose this article because I am currently enrolled in an organizational communication course.

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 is very minimal, which I believe is appropriate for the article. The introductory sentence is concise and to the point. While it does not briefly describe all sections of the article, it also does not include information not present in the article.

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
The article content is relevant to the topic. There also doesn't seem to be any important content missing. The content is also up-to-date, with a section dedicated to current research topics.

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 over-represented, or under-represented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance of the article is neutral. All of the viewpoints feel purposeful and honest. It is clear the article is informational as opposed to biased or somehow influenced.

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
The majority of the facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary sources. While there is a good spread of sources such as books, textbooks, and journal articles, one of the citations is repeated unnecessarily several times. Some of the sources also date as far back as 1958 which shows that not all of the sources are current. The links I clicked through did work.

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
There are no signs of organization issues.

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
Due to the nature of the topic there are not any 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 conversations are mainly critiques concerning things like over-detailing and scientific positivism. The article is part of the WikiProject Organization, rated as start-class and mid-importance. The talk is similar to talks I've participated in in digital journalism in terms of making it more concise and adding visual elements.

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
In general I would argue that this is a "good" article. Because it is a broad subject, it does well in covering the fundamentals and describing the different aspects of it. The article could be improved by expanding the source pool and fixing the one that's repeated unnecessarily.

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: