User:MaddiTM/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: Organizational communication
 * I chose this article to evaluate because, off the basis of this class, I am interested in learning more about the topic of organizational communication. That way I am more knowledgable for when I begin my own research.

Lead evaluation
The lead for this article is concise. However, with being concise it only contains two sentences, neither of which include information about the article's major sections. The lead does include a definition of the topic and clearly describes what the article will be about, however with no depth or description. It does not include anything not mentioned throughout the article, it rather states two large overview points for the basis of organizational communication and a definition, that is all.

Content evaluation
All of the content is relevant to the topic its self. The content goes into many different details pertaining to the topic of communication within organizations. The article breaks down the history, early assumptions, interpersonal and interpersonal communication, to the research methodology and perspectives all within organizations communication tactics. While communication is a daily changing field and there are new findings and research available daily to the adequacy and necessity of information for this article, all of the information appears to be up to date. Communication as a whole has many different facets and parts, the same goes for organizational communication. For that reason, even though the article is long and some of the information may feel unnecessary to know while reading, the reality is that all of it is necessary because communication within organizations are so complex.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of this article is neutral with an informative approach, as I would expect. While I do not feel that there are any biased claims throughout this article, there were occasional claims that felt strong and potentially persuasive. While explaining interpersonal communication there were a few claims made that spoke directly about how a boss should act and what they need. While the information did have a source, those lines or the way they were worded rather did not feel fitting and informative for this article. Because communication itself and communication within organizations are so unique from person to person and organization to organization, it is rather harsh and abrupt to make a straight claim that is supposed to pertain to every individual, whether that be a boss or a employee. Other than that though, I felt as though the majority of the article was well balanced and very informative. As far as speaking on methods and perspectives there were many definitions given and guidance with those definitions that felt informative rather than biased or persuasive.

Sources and references evaluation
For the most part the links seemed to work and most everything had a reliable reference. However when clicking on the article the first thing I read was that the article needs more citations and encourages me to find more references for the article. The sources were current and rather up to date, as well as being reliable secondary sources. All of the sources seemed to appropriately accommodate the information that was being portrayed throughout the article.

Organization evaluation
The article was organized very well. It began in chronological order beginning with the history and early assumptions. Following the chronology the article was broken down into types of communication that appears within organizations. I appreciated the clear and concise organization tactics that were inlace in this article. I did not witness any spelling or grammatical errors, the article appears to have been read and checked many times by multiple people before being published.

Images and media evaluation
This article did not contain any images or any visual attractiveness. The article was rather bland and not appealing to the eye, however the overall purpose of getting across information was accomplished.

Talk page evaluation
The majority of the conversation were focused around the potential for the article to be too detailed. There was also talk about a positivist scientist bias that appeared throughout the article while it would be more beneficial for readers to have all sides of the information. This article is rates a start class, meaning that it is a beginning article is in the works but is not complete and may or may not cite adequate sources. This article also a part of the WikiProjects organization. I believe the talk page was what I expected it to be based off of what we have talked about in class. There were many typical discussions about reliability and detailed and bias, I was not surprised or of any confusion while reading the talk page for this article.

Overall evaluation
Overall I found this article to be a well informed and scholarly article. there were many sources and references with many definitions and broken down topics that allowed the reader to fully understand and grasp the concept. The article can improve by taking out the potential persuasive tone in a few areas toward the middle fo the article. other than that though, I would not critique this article much more. I was satisfied with the development and knowledge of this article and trust it as a strong source for people to use to acquire information on organizational communication.