User:KindE26/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I'm evaluating the Marketing science page on Wikipedia.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Although it's perhaps slightly outside the scope of Social Psychology (the field which is the focus of the class for which I'm completing a Wikipedia project, and this exercise), it is central to my what I came to UCLA to study. Additionally, behavioral research in Marketing surely borrows from Social Psychology. My first impression is that this article is rather brief in its description of what constitutes Marketing as a (social) science.

Evaluate the article
Although the article overall is rather brief, it begins with a strong, succinct summary of what constitutes the Marketing as a social science. Still, I might argue that its stated view on the field's focus is rather constrained. A broader view might consider Marketing's "dual camps" – i.e., the fact that Marketing departments are typically split between Behavioral and Quantitative researchers.

Turning to the specific content, while it is certainly relevant, there seems to be a gap in the history covered in the article. While the article starts out strong with a description of Marketing's roots in the '60s, '70s, and '80s, it seems that its rich history in more recent years is overlooked (and instead the authors of the page jump to a tangential discussion of how Big Data has influenced Marketing; while this is certainly relevant, there are other aspects of the digital age that have been highly influential in Marketing, as well).

Luckily, I do think that the page is clearly written, and that it strikes a balanced tone. Its cited works are fairly limited, as is its talk page activity. I believe that both of these points ultimately tie back to my overall impression: that this page is just scratching the surface.