User:Mneelon/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: (link)Interpersonal communication
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I am really interested in interpersonal communication because when I took the class it let me know that im not as awkward as I think I am.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes last edited december 19,
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

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? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?No

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
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? One of them was in spanish which was kind of weird. but they work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. Its honestly kind of excessively long though.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, there are a lot of topics, it is very broad so it makes it very long.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, just a weird picture of a book.
 * Are images well-captioned? There is one image but it is captioned well.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No, I wish there was more.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? People think they need to add in how noise is involved in interpersonal communicatioin, and How the diagram looks sloppy.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes, it has been in many wiki education systems.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We havent really talked about this in class, but wikipedia almsot makes it seem super dry and lame.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It doesnt have a star or one of the check things, but it is used in wiki educaiton, So I think that sums it up pretty well.
 * What are the article's strengths? It has a lot of detail in the article, and a lot of knowledge can be gained from it.
 * How can the article be improved? It can be condensed and only the parts that really pertain to interpersonal communication should be on there.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, it seems like a very good page that many people used and it seems very official. I think since it is such a big topic, that people are very careful about putting the information out there.

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: