User:Neg45gtown/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: Narrative paradigm
 * I am researching this communication theory for a graduate class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead clearly and concisely articulates the Narrative paradigm. The Lead does not include extraneous information. However, it does not lead much into the article's following sections, most particularly the background in contrast to the Rational World Paradigm.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article mostly has relevant information, although the Applications subheadings are lacking in scope and detail. For example, the heading "Narrative and politics" references Smith's findings about Republican and Democratic Party platforms but does not expand much into how this unfolded. Additionally, this study in 1984 is not relatively up-to-date. Thus, the content is limited in scope and does not expand much beyond the original concepts of Walter Fisher.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral. I do not find anywhere that the claims are swayed toward a particular position.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Some of the findings are not linked to appropriate sources.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are no images that accompany the page.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The talk page is helpful. There is mostly critical feedback of the article. Wikipedia discusses the development of the theory


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article's overall status is "in progress" and needs further development. While it concisely and effectively explains the Narrative paradigm as a communication theory, it needs further reinforcement through recent findings and applications.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: