User:Mcthompson5/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: Expectancy violations theory
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I find this particular theory very interesting and it relates to both interpersonal and relational communication. At first glance, I could tell that it was developed but still needed work.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the author of the text does and excellent job with the introductory sentence and with explaining the topic in a clear and concise way.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * If anything, the Lead briefly discusses some of the major points that will be later discussed. However, this is not done in an organized format.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead does well with sticking to the relevant topic of the article and information within the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * In my opinion, the Lead is a great length, stays on topic, and concise. However, I do think that the Lead could do a much better job laying out what the rest of the article will be discussing.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Overall, the content is relevant and relatable to the topic. The "Components" section is very well laid out and explained.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Most of the content is up-to-date and the ways in which the theory has altered or evolved is well explained. In addition, the portion of the article discussing Facebook needs to be updated. A study done in 2010 is discussed within this section and the technological jargon is irrelevant or outdated with current Facebook features.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There were a couple of sections that should have either been expanded upon or shortened. For example, the "Academic environment" section has too many subsections and is too detailed. The overall theoretical principles become lost within the extensive information. In contrast, towards the end, the "Metatheoretical assumptions" and "Critique" sections both need to be expanded upon. A substantial explanation of information in both sections is missing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * In regards to the four questions stated above, the article for the most part does an excellent job at staying neutral and presenting the information without leaning towards a particular opinion or viewpoint. However, the author did lean slightly towards the belief that the unpredictability regarding expectancy violations is evident and even causes such violations impossible to be analyzed. This can be seen in the "First Look at Communication" subsection, and I think this statement should have been pointed out but not discussed in such depth, almost as if disregarding major claims within the theory. I think that the subsections under "Application" were also unbalanced as "Interpersonal Communication" was briefly touched on and "Academic Environment" was discussed in too much depth.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The article provides a sufficient amount of citations that are backed up with reliable secondary sources. All of the sources are current, the ones I clicked on do work and were thorough. The major sources pulled from within the article reflect the overall literature that is available regarding the Expectancy Violations Theory.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is well-written, easy to read, and presented in a way that is easy to comprehend. There are a few minor grammatical and spelling errors. None of the errors took away from the point that was being made. The beginning of the article is well organized and the sections have concise yet substantial information. Most of the article is broken down into defining or explaining major ideas and then offers relatable and current examples that elaborate or connect the concepts being stated. The end of the article is definitely more unorganized as certain sections are too long or not long enough. The later portion of the article also seems as if it were rushed. The "Health and self-improvement" section needs to be expanded, the "Critique" section is lacking information. The "Needs for personal space and affiliation" section includes great information with reliable sources, but could be better organized, presented, and explained. The connection between the theory and affiliation is hardly discussed.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * I thoroughly enjoyed the images. The number of images included was appropriate and helpful.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The captions were to the point and concise which I appreciated.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the images do adhere to the copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I think the images are well placed and positioned in order to be most affective.

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 is a lot of conversation on the article's talk page that include multiple well written and helpful peer reviews.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is C-Class rated and is a part of WikiProject Psychology which is a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of psychology on Wikipedia.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * I think the biggest difference between what is being discussed and our class is that the article is derived from a psychological viewpoint.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article was rated as "Mid-importance" on the project's importance scale.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The major underlying concepts behind the theory are very well explained and incorporated into the article. However, the application and critique of the article are lacking relatability and are not well explained.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The sources that the article pulls from are very reliable, but the information within the article could be better balanced and organized.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Major points of the theory are complete and thorough as well as well-developed. The examples utilized and overall application could be improved and better organized in order for the article to flow and read more easily.

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 ~


 * Link to feedback: