User:Pickleboydyl/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Social penetration theory

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because I have an interest in Interpersonal Communication, specifically in relationship development. Upon reading the article for interpersonal communication, I came across social penetration theory and decided to choose it for my article. I was unaware of this theory before reading the article. I find this theory particularly interesting because the principles of the theory can be applied and understood with personal experiences that almost everyone has. The tenants of the theory reflect how humans interact with each other and is therefore applied generally in society, so the topic is relevant to almost everyone. My initial impressions of the theory were that it is a linear but simple overview of relationship development. It struck me as a building block for other, more complex theories. I think that SPT is easy to understand for both communication scholars and the general population. I also think that this theory would be useful in contexts such as relationship therapy or therapy in general. SPT can provide a foundational understanding of one of the core aspects of social communication, which can help people become better communicators overall.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section

The lead section has positive and negative aspects. The lead section does a good job of giving a brief overview of what SPT is in the first sentences. The reader has a basic understanding of concept of the theory and can read further for more details. It introduces some basic concepts and foundations of the theory but does not go into detail, instead giving the concepts their own section. However, there is some unnecessary information that is distracting and irrelevant to other parts of the article. There is an opportunity for a sentence clearly stating that SPT is based upon assumptions. The lack of this may cause confusion and misunderstanding of the limitations of SPT for the readers.

Tone and Balance

The article does a good job of being neutral. Both potential uses and limitations are brought up and discussed throughout the article. The article mentions scenarios where the theory applies, as well as instances where it does not. Evidence is provided to back up claims on both sides. However, when describing potential scenarios and applications of SPT, the tone tends to be slightly positive or negative, respectively. These issues could be corrected with a rewording of the explanations. There are no minority or fringe viewpoints discussed in the article, so it is unclear if those viewpoints exist within the discussion of SPT.

Sources and References

issues with sources are one of the main issues of this article. There are numerous and diverse sources cited in the article for many of its claims, however many of the sources listed do not link to a webpage or any easily accessible source to verify the accuracy of the material. There is an accessibly gap when it comes to who can verify the information. Since much of the source is not linked, a reader would have to have access to a collection of journals and an easy way to potentially access them. Because the information is not fully verifiable, there is reasonable doubt to the validity of the article. In addition, many of the claims made are lacking any form of citation. This is a glaring issue with the article and should be considered a top priority when editing.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is well-organized overall, but with some flaws. There are clear headings and subsections, so specific information is easy to locate. However, the applications section could be confusing as it discusses other theories in detail. The applications section could do a better job of explaining SPT through the lens of the other theories, rather than explaining that theory then connecting it to SPT after. There are also other sections that would benefit from being written more clearly. Specifically, the breath and depth section. It could be difficult to differentiate and distinguish the two. As one of the core aspects of the theory, this should be explained thoroughly and clearly. The examples provided are confusing and take away from the explanations overall. A rewrite by a different editor with a better understanding of the concept would be extremely beneficial.

Images and media

The one image included in the article is important and useful. It provides a clearly labeled visual representation of the onion layers analogy. A graphic explaining the difference between breath and depth would also be extremely beneficial to the article.

Talk Page Discussion

This article is part of a Wikiproject focusing on psychology. The article is rated as being start-class and mid-importance by the quality and importance scales respectively. The main discussions going on within the article are peer reviews by college students in 2014. There are some later contributions from more recent years, but the majority of the article seems as if it was written by a student for a grade. Those discussing the article on the talk page are students with limited information on this theory, rather than credible and knowledgeable individuals.

Overall Impressions

This article is definitely considered a work-in-progress, but with a solid foundation. The articles main strengths are that it describes the main concepts of the theory clearly and concisely and is well-connected within its field. The reader can come away with an understanding of the theories main concepts and points. The sources listed appear to be recent, diverse and relevant. However, this article needs improvements in key areas. The most obvious being the lack of citations on many claims and overall lack of accessible evidence. There is also a need for some rewording and additional clarity. Because this article was mainly written by amateur college students, there are aspects that would be improved by having an authority on the subject improve. The article is still underdeveloped and is incomplete.