User:NicoleCastigs17/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: Communication privacy management theory
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because I would like to learn more about how people in close relationships decide when to disclose certain information to each other. In other words, is there a line that can be drawn between self-disclosure and privacy boundaries?  I think I can relate to this theory on a personal level.  Often times in the relationships that I have, I tend to have my guard up in what I am able to express to someone else.  I feel more comfortable disclosing personal information to my family than to my friends.  It would be interesting to see what the process is like on average for a person to open up to someone they consider to have a "close relationship" with.  To add, I would like to learn about how Communication Privacy Management Theory takes place in the real world.  I find issues surrounding privacy to be diverse.  For example, privacy matters between family and friends could have a completely different meaning than work place privacy matters.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the article starts with a topic sentence introducing the definition of the theory.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, in the first three paragraphs of the lead it only describes what Communication Privacy Management Theory is. It does not inform the reader what the article is going to be about.  Rather, it gives the five core principles of CPM that are not brought up again.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the five core principles are not drawn out in detail throughout the rest of the article other than the third paragraph. Technically, I wouldn't have made that a paragraph.  I would have just added it to the second paragraph.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise. It does not provide too much detail about what the theory entails, rather an overview of what the theory is.  The article then gets broken up into sections to expand on the theory.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article's content is related to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, it seems that the last edit was made in July of 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, I do not see any content that could be missing from this article. I think all elements of the article are relevant to CPM.  However, there could be more information in the background section of this article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article is neutral. However, at the bottom of the article it discusses the criticism this theory received from researchers.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think that the academic integration section of the article is underrepresented, as well as the background section. There is only a couple sentences underneath these sections that are not easily understandable to the reader.  More information should be added to this.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, this article does a good job of incorporating the different elements of this theory and how it can be applied to different forms of communication within relationships. Some of these applications include family communication, work place communication and so on.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the facts in the article look like they are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The citations look credible.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, all of these sources are in reference to topics surrounding Communication Privacy Management Theory.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The most recent source is from 2016. The sources range from 1991 to 2016.  Both old and new information is presented.  However, I am sure even more new information on CPM is out there and should be added to this article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I think this article is very well written. It discusses all the fundamental elements of CPM and it is very easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I can see, no.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I think there needs to be some clean up within the sections that reflect major points on the topic. A little bit of organization for this article couldn't hurt, but the content is most certainly there.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, there are four diagrams that help break down the theory elements.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There is a description next to the diagram to explain in more detail what it represents.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * They are just diagrams related to CPM elements.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The conversations vary between basic and more informational. Some include introductions about themselves, and what certain people are studying in relation to looking at this article.  A lot of "thank you for this information" is prevalent as well.  For the most part, everyone is coming to an agreement that this article is well written and easy to understand.  Contrary to this however, it is being suggested by a few editors that more information on the background section should be added.  Others are suggesting that it is necessary to "clean up" certain areas of the theory elements section, providing more detail.  Finally, aside from the lack of information surrounding the academic integration section, more information should be added in the critique section as well.  Different ideas are being suggested on how to make it more understandable to the reader.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The rating for this article does not exist within the importance or quality scale, and it is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology . There has been a total of 878 edits to this article within the last 30 days.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not gone into much detail about Communication Privacy Theory, however from what we discussed it seems that Wikipedia touches on the same points we talked about. The idea of us disclosing information to certain people we feel we speak the "same language" as is common.  We create boundaries for ourselves and feel more comfortable around the relationships we feel accepted in.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Needs work. There are no ratings for this article.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * There is a lot of information being presented throughout this article. I also like how it is easy to read and follow.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Organization. It would be beneficial to clean up the theory application areas and add more information to certain sections that were mentioned above.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think the article is well developed. It has all the proper elements to it, it just needs to be cleaned up in a way that it flows cohesively.

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: