User:JordanMay44/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_other

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I learnt about the generalized other in a previous sociology course, and found it very interesting. The generalized other matters because it is a significant social construct. My first impression was that the article gives a brief overview of the topic, provides some relative context, and related the generalized other to authors aside from Mead.

Evaluate the article
Jordan Boone

University of Saskatchewan

Harley D. Dickinson

Friday, 21st, 2022

Evaluate Wikipedia Assignment

Generalized Other

Lead section

The first sentence of the article opens with a bit of background information, and the second sentence identifies the topic. The article would benefit from swapping these two sentences. The lead section is quite short and does not describe the article's major sections. The lead does include a drop-down bar navigating the sections. The lead section does not include information that is not present in the article. The lead is concise, possibly too short.

Content

The article's content is relevant to the topic, including the see also pages, and further readings. The content was last edited six months ago and is fairly up to date. It is not a topic that would need consistent updating. All the contents seem to belong, and the article could benefit from additional content. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedias equity gaps or topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

The article is neutral and provides a basic overview of the generalized other. The article focuses on the perspective of George Herbert Mead, because he introduced it to the social sciences, and used it in symbolic interactionism. The article does not rely solely on Mead and links the concepts to other Authors. The article does not attempt to persuade the audience of one opinion or another.

Sources and References

The facts and quotes in the article are all referenced. Despite the article being on a significant topic in sociology, it is short. This indicates that additional information and references could be included to better cover the topic. The sources are not current, the most up-to-date source is from 2019. The sources come from nine authors. None of the references are news article or come from random websites. However, only one reference is a direct link. Additionally the article includes links to other related Wikipedia pages, as well as further readings, which is useful.

Organization and writing quality

The article is well written, it is concise, clear, and easy to read. The article does not appear to have any significant grammatical or spelling errors, however, a large portion of the article does come from direct quotes. The article is well organized, it is broken down into a description of the topic, precursors, role play and games, multiple generalized others, psychoanalytic equivalents, see all, references, further readings, and external links.

Images & Media

There are no accompanying images.

Talk Page Discussions

There are page discussions available.

Overall Impressions

The article appears to have a good status, there are no messages at the top of the article that would indicate otherwise. The article's strengths are that it does provide good examples of what the generalized other is, provides some context, and what it is related to. The article could be improved by adding additional content that is not directly quoted. The article is relatively well developed but could benefit from elaborating on the topic and making some minor changes.

Source Link

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_other