User:Kberger15/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Intercultural communication

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I took a class in this study last year. I find this topic in communication very interesting and when I find this article through the suggested academic disciplinary category it said it had some problems with the article. Intercultural communication matters because it relates to communication to different cultures and learning from it allows us to gain more knowledge about people and how to respect everyone. My first impression of the article was that I liked the layout of it. The 'problem' wikipedia flagged was how it was in list form and it needed to be in prose form. I personally liked it in list form, but need to further inspect it.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The problems flagged with the article is needed verification, more citations to add in support of the article, and writing the article as a prose rather than more of a list. I find it easier to read as a list when there is this much information that is given in a topic.

The article gives a good lead section. It gives an introductory sentence that's concise and clear in describing the topic of intercultural communication. It does not blatantly leave a brief description of the articles major sections such as the theories or history tab. It only gives a further description of explaining what intercultural communication is and why it's important to learn it. It does not include information that's not present in the article. The lead is concise but detailed in explaining the goal of intercultural communication, why it's important, and what it is as well as who it affects.

Content: The articles content is relevant to the topic, it dives into the different aspects in needing to understand and know more information about intercultural communication.

The content is up to date but needs more verification in citations needing to be added.It does not deal with one of wikipedias equity gaps or address topics related to historically underrepresented populations. It does address underrepresented topics such as the areas of interest in cross cultural business strategies. I thought this section was very interesting because at first i thought it was unnecessary but it gives a real world example of how area is used.

Tones and balance: This article is neutral by giving multiple points of views in understanding this topic. There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. Minority viewpoints accurately described given the different points of view in this topic. The article attempts to persuade the reader in favor of one position towards "sensitivity and allowing for empathetic understanding across different cultures".

Sources and references: Facts in article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. There are many sources listed in the citations. Sources information are still current but there needs to be additional sources added for verification. This is a flagged problem at the top of the article. There are always better sources available, even if it is just backing up what older ones are saying; it shows they are up to date. There are peer review articles in place of news coverage or random websites. The citations are from journals, books, and studies done on the topic. Some of them are however older. The links for citations work.

Organization and writing quality: The organization and writing quality is great, I really like how it is organized. Also, the writing quality is easy to follow, I enjoyed reading the article because I wouldn't get caught up in unnecessary, difficult constructed sentences. The article is well written and well organized; very clear. I do not think the lists should be put into all prose. The lists used are for short things in describing different parts of the topic. It actually makes it easier to read with the lists. If it was in all prose, it would be more difficult to understand since there is so much information. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. Overall, the sub-points of the article does reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media: One image enhances the understanding of the topic thus in showing how it was authentic and not posed, and has a well written caption. It allows the reader to better understand the topic at hand. The other image in the article does not, it is unclear. One image is well captioned in communicating what the image is displaying. The other image is more short; "Interfaith Thanksgiving Dinner"it shows two men, who are unnamed. It is unclear what they have to do with intercultural communication due to the caption below the picture. Once you click on the picture it does explain more but i have never clicked on a picture to learn more on wikipedia, truly. Therefore the picture needs to have a better short caption written below it. All images adhere to wikipedia copyright regulations. The images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

Talk Page discussion

The talk page has many reviews on this topic, all which like it but have certain critique they want to be made. Some of the critiques are about the theories and how more should be added to them/ expanded on. There is another one that needs expansion on globalization and intercultural communication. I'm not sure if the article is necessarily rated, but there are complimentary comments and there's constructive feedback.This topic is apart of wiki projects culture, sociology, and translation studies. It was also subject to a Wiki education Foundation- supported course assignment. The article differs in the way we've talked in class by how much information we really have to take into account in editing these articles and trying to spot every error. But it is also hard because some people think its important to talk about different aspects in relation to this topic and others don't. So it is hard because everyones going to talk about different aspects and make it subjective.

Overall impressions

The overall status of the article needs some slight critique, with the add on information and added sources to verify its current status. The article's strengths is definitely the layout of the format. The lists make it so much easier to read and understand plus show emphasis on what is important. What needs improvement is added sources as well as another picture. The article is well-developed, it starts off very strong but then needs some help in the body with some of the topics.