User:Jlpowell5/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: (Theories of humor)
 * I chose this article because I am interested in humor and how it is utilized as a coping mechanism in interpersonal communication in addition to other functional roles it plays in relational communication.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it captures the idea that there are a plethora of humor theories in the world of psychology that relate extensively to communication.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, again it reiterates that there are many theories that encompass the concept of humor and provides a layout for how the page should read.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the lead comments on spirituality an mysticism in humor without providing paragraphs about these aspects, but it does give links to articles that expound on these topics.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise but through in its introduction.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant to the topic and provides appropriate citations for the research to back it up.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * For the most part, it seems that the content is up to date, but there is some scholarly research that could possibly be added to help expound on content.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * As mentioned previously, the content is appropriate and extremely thorough but there is room for additional and more recent material.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article does not seem editorialized but as a presentation of unbiased facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, it is relatively even throughout the article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are some theories that are underrepresented I believe, such as the superiority theory and the defense mechanism sections of the article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, again, the article seems pretty neutral and balanced with the information given.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, they have complete and accurate reference sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Most of the sources are from case studies and scholarly journals so they are thorough to the discussion, and the article does a good job of summarize the research pertinent to each theory.
 * Are the sources current?
 * There is room to provide and update with sources that are more recent.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is presented in a clear manner that is easy to follow but provides enough information to the reader that they should leave with a clear understanding of the breadth of research.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * From my readings, no, there are no errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the article does a good job of giving a thesis like introduction that allows the major points to flow well in the remainder of the article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is one image on this article of a glass that is half-empty/half-full. It could use more images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the image has a caption with a hyperlinked source.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, considering it only has one image, there is not much room for error in layout.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Yes, there are some comments about humor in the early years of civilization, and there is a comment about the spelling of humor and whether or not it should be linked to the parent article titled "Humour."
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Yes, there is a plea on the talk page that says, "This article needs attention from an expert in Comedy  or Psychology." It is rated as a "Start-Class" article so it still needs some development. And it is part of a few Wiki-projects including the Philosophy, Comedy, and Psychology pages.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not yet discussed this topic in class.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The overall status is like mentioned before in the "Start-class" category so its incomplete and not a featured article but still considered thorough and pertinent.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Its layout is strong so it is easily understandable. It also does a good job on the breadth of the theories and provides enough depth that is not overwhelming.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * There are some suggestions on the talk page that suggest adding a rebuttal to some of the theories. I think providing those opposing views allows the reader to see how some of the theories can be refuted in a manner that shows these are just theories... not doctrine. They are guesses and educated possible explanations.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is developed enough to provide a decent and relevant amount of information but could use improvement. It definitely needs added research from recent years to either validate the claims already made, or to present an opposing viewpoint.

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: