User:Jwright2371/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: Dichotic listening
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This is a topic that we had learned about last semester and something that I found interesting. Also, when I was looking for articles, there was a good amount of information available and how it works in a few different aspects.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence is very concise and describes the topic very well. There are also some links to other topic areas, to help describe the topic, but without clicking the links, it would be difficult to understand.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There are a few pieces of information relating to the other sections, however not all of the information is brought up in the introduction. There could be a larger section in the introduction to be able to have a better introduction to the topics that are within the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, there is not information in the lead that is not presented in the article. All of the information in the lead is included in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise, and there are not a whole lot of details that are presented within the lead.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article covers in detail a few different aspects of what dichotic listening entails. They go into detail about emotions, details about men versus women, processing of language and the history of dichotic listening. This is all important to the topic of what dichotic listening is, and why it is important for listening.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * There has not been new discoveries in the field of dichotic listening, so this information is all up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no information that does not belong in this section. However, I think there are a few topics that are missing that are related to dichotic listening. I think there could be a section about binaural fusion, as well as some of the studies that were completed in the history section. Some of these studies include a pilot study where they listened with headphones and listen with one ear at a time. I think the explanation of this study could help people who are not in the audiology field to  understand this topic a bit more.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does not deal with one of the Wikipedia equity gaps. It does not address any topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics, but this idea of dichotic listening deals with everyone. Whether someone is normal hearing, deaf in one ear or deaf in both ears, the idea of dichotic listening is still present. It is still important to know this information and how it works with each person.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, this article is neutral. Dichotic listening is based on research, and is not really a topic that could have bias towards it in one direction or another.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are not any claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. The article explains each topic well and the research behind these topics.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, this article does not persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The informations and facts that are included in this article are all from journal articles on dichotic listening. All of the information is from a peer-reviewed journal article and the information is reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are thorough. Each source has a specific topic that it is associated with. There are also multiple sources that are discussing the same topic, to be able to get  the most accurate information that is available. There is more literature that could be added to this article, for example binaural fusion which I mentioned in one of the questions above, but the information that is available as referenced, is reliable and included within this article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * A great deal of the research that is on dichotic listening is from the 1960s/1970s and beyond. The most current source that is included is from 2015, as well as some information from the early 2000s. While this information is not in the last five years, the information is all still relevant.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources that are referenced in this article have a few different journals that they come from. These journals include psychology, audiology, linguistics, and neuropsychology. There are a wide variety of authors that are referenced, with only one or two names that pop-up more than one or two times, but for the most part there are different authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Clicking through the different links, I did not find one that did not work throughout the article or throughout the references section.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is very concise in each of the different sections. For the most part the information is clear, however the information is just discussing findings from som articles. It is not really describing the different topics, it is more just a summary of research findings.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors. The references are cited properly throughout the article have proper links to topics within each article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is well-organized for the most part. It begins by discussing what exactly dichotic listening is, and then discusses the different tests. The article then goes into talking about neuroscience and language processing, however I think that the emotions/dichotic listening sections should be moved up towards this area because it pertains to this information. This is the only section that I would move, but the rest is very well-organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images to enhance the understanding of this topic. I believe that there are a few pictures that I had received from my psychoacoustics class that helped to explain dichotic listening from some research articles. I think that some of these different pictures would be beneficial to understand the topic a little bit more and to help those who are visual learners really get the take home message of what dichotic listening is.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images to caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no images to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There are no images to be visually appealing.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * In the talk page, there is not much of a conversation occurring. The only kind of conversation that occurred is dicussing merging two different pages. The other page was discussing the Dichotic Listening Test, while this page was strictly discussing the idea of Dichotic Listening.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated at C-class, low-importance and mid-importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This is not related to our noise class, but it related to hearing in general. It is an important topic regarding how we hear, which then connects to how noise affects our hearing. While it is not directly related to our class, in general it is still connected to hearing and audiology.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * One of the articles strengths is the conciseness that occurs within the article. It is descriptive of the different topics that are discussed, however not in too much detail so readers who are not audiologist can still understand the topic at hand. Another strength is the connection between other topic areas. The article discusses psychology topics, neuroscience topics and more. This helps to get more readers interested in this topic and for others to gain more knowledge.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could use a bit more information in other ways that dichotic listening affects people. Some articles about other studies could help to put this information together. Another way it could be improved would be pictures. While there are not going to be whole bunch of pictures to explain this topic, some picture may be beneficial to those who are visual learners.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I believe that this article is well-developed. There is a good amount of information for someone who finds this article, they could understand what it is all about. I think that there are some areas that could be improved upon, however the article is well-developed overall.
 * I believe that this article is well-developed. There is a good amount of information for someone who finds this article, they could understand what it is all about. I think that there are some areas that could be improved upon, however the article is well-developed overall.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article done very well. There are a lot of good details without overwhelming the reader. There are good links throughout the article and the resources seem to be very accurate in their findings. There are some improvements that could be made, however the article does a very good job at explaining the topic at hand.

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: