User:MarciWilson/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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_humor_processing
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.We chose this article to evaluate because it was relevant to Cognitive Psychology. We were also interested in learning more about humor and its relation to cognitive psychology.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The first sentence states very clearly that what we will be covering in this article will be cognitive humor processing. This is clear and concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, but needs to be all cognitive. The main slant seems to be cognitive and how it develops over a lifetime.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. It goes over the subdivided two elements of humor, humor comprehension, humor as attitude related to strains, as well as therapeutic effects of humor, all which are not discussed in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is detailed with information that is not in the article itself. It would be more concise if it stuck to summarizing the main points of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Some of the content is relevant and some is not. The title and introductory sentence are about cognitive psychology, while what follows is about other fields of psychology. It needs to be rewritten and stay on topic or change the title of the Wiki article to include the developmental process.
 * Is the content up-to-date? No.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No core points missing, but due to not being up to date data, there is more information that could be added.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Perhaps the view of early age development was underrepresented
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article is neutral and doesn’t focus on persuading but instead informing.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, at the time.
 * Are the sources current? Sources go through 2013.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Needs clarification.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not seen.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Two images are used to show parts of the brain.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The source link to the image does not work, however, it does give credit to the source.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the moving image of the brain is eye catching.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are reviews of the page based on a combined score evaluating different parts combining up to 20 points, average rate is 16.5/20 for the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Three reviews: 16, 16, and 18. 16.5 average. Or a C-Class on the quality scale.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have not yet really talked about cognitive humor processing though it does relate to the trainings we had this week with the patterns of the brain and how connections are made (human face/objects) and humor and the role it plays.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status? Given a C-Class status, but active editing and well received input. Edits still coming as of June of this year. Active.
 * What are the article's strengths? It has research behind it & good references to back it up.
 * How can the article be improved? Bring research and content up-to-date. Either broaden the topic or just stick to the cognitive part of humor.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is well-developed but needs more clarification.

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 ~
 * I (Lucretia) went in on my talk page and made comments. I said it would help the article to be stronger if current data was included. Also, the prefrontal cortex picture did not have labeling as to where humor processing took place.
 * While I (Matt) was reading one section (Early Age) it seemed like a core part of the discussion towards how we actually begin forming humor and how it relates here. I thought there could be more information shared about those early developmental years and (I hope correctly) shared a thought to link with Jean Piaget who had a lot of influence in child psychology and development beyond the Mirth test.


 * Link to feedback:
 * Talk:Cognitive humor processing