User:Krodg093/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Intercultural communication

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because as a communications student, it is both a discipline I am interested in and something that is relevant to the courses I am taking. I have some background knowledge on intercultural communication, which will help me conduct a more effective article evaluation.

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.)

Lead section


 * Lead uses an introductory paragraph to describe the article's topic. The paragraph offers a good, yet lengthy explanation of the subject. Could be made more concise to not overwhelm the reader, and to leave the details for their respective sub-sections.
 * The lead section does not bring up most of the article's major sections. Instead it acts as a long definition of the topic.
 * No it does not
 * The lead is a little overly detailed. As a reader I think I would of benefited more from a breakdown of the article's major subheadings, instead of the lengthy definition given.

Content


 * Most of the content is relevant to the topic. The author(s) explain multiple theories and perspectives related to intercultural communication, and explains how this discipline is present and relevant in everyday life. Some information though related, seems to be out of place (ex: history of assimilation paragraph).
 * Yes the content is up to date. The article includes references to studies done in the past 5 years.
 * I think some explanation on the given points are missing. Though the information seems relevant and accurate, a lot of it is provided in bullet point lists. Readers (especially those with little knowledge on the subject) would benefit from some more context to make sense of these points.
 * No, the article is addressing a well-known discipline of communication studies.

Tone and Balance


 * Yes, the article is neutral. It is focused on displaying facts and theories of the discipline.
 * No, the information is presented in a factual manner. The author(s) keep a neutral, fact based tone and do not attempt to persuade the reader.
 * I think viewpoints were pretty fairly represented. Each theory/perspective had a brief explanation that was of a similar length.

Sources and References


 * Yes, all definitions, statistics and facts are followed by an in-text citation crediting an academic journal or publication.
 * I think the sources are fairly thorough. A variety of different academic journals, publications and encyclopedias were referenced. Fairly lengthy reference list for the length of the article. Many different academic's findings were included, and the article was not overly reliant on one source.
 * I think the sources were appropriately up to date. A variety of older and newer sources were accessed, but most of them were written in the last 10-15 years. I think this is new enough to reflect any new developments in the area, but the sources don't need to be overly current as this basis of the discipline will remain the same.
 * Most of the sources seemed credible and very accurate to the topic. A few references were made to blog styled sources, which should be replaced by books or other publications written by experts in the field.
 * Yes the links work.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * Beyond the lead, the article is concise and fairly easy to read. Theories and major perspectives are explained in small bullet points and paragraphs. This highlights the key information without overwhelming the reader with too much filler. I think some points could use some elaboration, as not all the bullet points speak for themselves. The article is effective in including clear and concise examples after introducing a new topic or perspective.
 * The article had proper spelling and good grammar. I did notice a few paragraphs had run-on sentences (lead) or lacked flow.
 * The article had clearly outlined sections dedicated to theories, perspectives and different types of communication. I think this use of organization is really helpful for the reader to find exactly what they're looking for, and to brush up on areas they are less familiar with. I felt that some of the sections were unnecessary, and would have been better suited as a supporting paragraph for a more clearly defined concept.

Images and Media


 * This article was not very strong in images or visuals. The entire article only includes two small pictures, which both conveyed a basically identical message. I think this article could have benefited from more visuals, maybe some diagrams to depict the theoretical elements and their connections.
 * The images do have captions, but they could have been more descriptive (especially the second) to really show how they are related to the topic.
 * Yes the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, the cc info is in the image citation.
 * I think it would of been more visually appealing to have a bigger variety in images (different sizes, depicting different aspects of intercultural communication etc.)

Talk page discussion


 * On the talk page I found writers engaging in positive and supportive discourse. There were multiple posts interacting with the content different authors had added, thanking them for their contributions, and suggesting next steps to take. The writers weren't shy to offer a helping hand, and they all seemed enthusiastic to be working on this page together.
 * This page is apart of 3 Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Culture, Wikiproject Sociology and Wikiproject Translation studies. This article was edited as part of a Wiki Education Foundation assignment.
 * The article focused more on the literal definition and components of different communication theories. I feel our course has examined theories more from a standpoint of how they are present in media and everyday life.

Overall Impressions


 * I feel the article has a strong base, but could still use some modifications and additions to provide a more thorough and well-rounded explanation of the discipline. Wikipedia has the article flagged as needing more verification as well as some format changes.
 * The article provides a strong theoretical and conceptual base to intercultural communication. It gives thorough definitions and is successful in relating these concepts to both verbal and non-verbal communication types. The author(s) placed a heavy focus on how intercultural communication presents itself in a business setting, and I think this section of the article was especially strong, as it provided a solid real world context for the previously examined theories.
 * Some of the concepts mentioned in the article could use a few sentences of explanation so readers understand why they are relevant/related, especially for readers unfamiliar with the discipline. I think the history section could use some expanding, as right now it is brief and seems unconnected from the rest of the article. The overall format of the article could use some tweaking. The article is in list format which does make it easy to read, but gives an impression that the article is unfinished or in its draft stages. I think the article would benefit from more small paragraphs and top save the bullet points for examples and brief concepts.
 * I think the article is fairly well-developed but still unfinished. Most sections, especially the important theories, are very detailed and thorough. Some of the smaller concepts could use some explanation to demonstrate their connection to the topic. Some of the sections are still rather short, which do give the article a more unfinished appearance, but I think this could be fixed with a few brief paragraph explanations. I'd say the biggest lack in the article is its formatting. Transforming the lists into small paragraphs would definitely elevate the article in terms of completeness.