User:SSchaffer1/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an Article: Interpersonal Communication
I chose to evaluate the Interpersonal Communication article. I chose this article due to its core relevancy to our course, Relational Communication. The article is intended to provide a definition, background, and relevant theories on the topic.

Lead
The Lead does not provide a clear introduction to the topic, and is overly detailed. Though the introductory sentence directly defines interpersonal communication as found in The International Encyclopedia of Communication, the remainder of the section does not provide context or a summary of the article. The Lead includes a Contents list for ease of search, however, the section does not refer to any of these items. The additional information in the Lead is not found anywhere else in the article.

Content
The article's content is related to, but not directly derived from the topic. The content is current, though several rounds of edits have been suggested but not yet made. Much of the content does not belong in this article, and should instead be suggested links for further reading. Their associated articles are much more aligned with Wikipedia standards.

Tone and Balance
The article is not entirely neutral. When describing theories, it takes a position on behavior. For example, technology is described as "a very useful thing". Because the article presents so many different topics, no viewpoints are necessarily represented more than others. The article seems to be written as more of an essay than an encyclopedia entry with wording such as "also important to note".

Sources and References
The article overall includes numerous reputable sources, though each statement is not backed up. The article has been flagged as needing additional citations for verification. Multiple sections have potentially biased sources, or use observations instead of references. The sources that are included are current and the links provided work.

Organization
The article is not well-written. It is lengthy, strays from the topic, and does not lead to understanding of interpersonal communication. The article has many run-on sentences, which make reading it difficult. The article is split into sections: role, context, and theories. These do not reflect all major points of the topic, such as background, academic study, and application to other fields.

Images and Media
Out of the six images included in the article, two enhance understanding of the topic: a diagram of types of communication and a visual of stages of development compared to language learned. All included images include captions describing their placement in the article and adhere to copyright regulations. The images do not all align with their relevant content on the article - some are found beneath the appropriate section and are too small to properly view.

Checking the talk page
The Talk page has quite a bit of charged language. Prior contributors are upset about the edits, and reviewers commented on its "sloppiness". Opinions seem to have infiltrated the section instead of presenting facts with appropriate explanations. The article is part of multiple WikiProjects: Linguistics, Sociology, and Psychology. In each it has been rated a C, indicating it has significant problems and requires much cleanup. Because this topic is relevant to multiple fields, the references, examples, and related theories differ in part than our review of the topic in Relational Communication. It appears to have also been a project for a nursing course, given some of the comments and citations related to the medical field.

Overall impressions
The article is not ready for consumption. Though it has been extensively researched, the writing is not concise and the content has not been well thought-out. The article's strengths are the reference material and available related articles that can be linked. The article could improve by starting fresh with a new outline. The Lead should feature the definition and topics to be covered in the article. Each section should then have a purpose and all related reference material to build from. Statements should be direct and to the point, with sources for each assertion.

Optional activity
From "Tone and Balance" I chose to leave my evaluation on the neutrality of the article. In at least two places the article chooses to take a position: on married couples' behavior and the usefulness of technology.

Link to feedback: Biases Within Article