User:Smash toast/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 accommodation theory
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This theory is of particular interest to me, specifically the degree to which individuals are willing to converge and leave behind their own cultural traits/characteristics in order to accommodate.  Also interesting to see how political figures attune their speeches in this election season to their audiences.  Also of relevant in the law enforcement world right now.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Communication accommodation theory (CAT) is a theory of communication developed by Howard Giles. This theory concerns "(1) the behavioral changes that people make to attune their communication to their partner, (2) the extent to which people perceive their partner as appropriately attuning to them." The basis of the theory lies in the idea that people adjust (or accommodate) their style of speech to one another. Doing this helps the message sender gain approval from the receiver, increases efficiency in communication between both parties, and helps the sender maintain a positive social identity. This theory is concerned with the links between language, context, and identity. It focuses on both the intergroup and interpersonal factors that lead to accommodation, as well as the ways that power, macro and micro-context concerns affect communication behaviors.. Accommodation is usually considered to be between the message sender and the message receiver, but the communicator also often accommodates to a larger audience- either a group of people that are watching the interaction or society in general.


 * 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? No entirely
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Somewhat overly detailed but ultimately gives a good overview

Lead evaluation
While the lead does explain the theory, I believe it goes into too much detail and it repetitive. The first sentence says the theory "concerns" and then the second sentence says the "basis of the theory lies" - which I think that these 2 sentences could be combines into one complete initial sentence explaining the theory.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes - I like that the psychological theories that helped shape CAT are included for framing
 * Is the content up-to-date? There is a lot of good content, but I think it could be improved.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article is a little light on the Intercultural communication accommodation section
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not necessarily, however with the current climate of police/civilian interactions, I think more could be added to the police officers case study sections.

Content evaluation
The definitions and sections might be a little long and I see opportunities to define some additional key concepts of the theory (partial/complete, mutual/non-mutual), which would help break apart some of the word heavy sections.

Overall I think there is a good foundational education in the article with opportunities to expand on current themes and sections, organizational opportunities / conciseness, add in more case study examples

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes - the article states facts and also has a section for the criticisms of the theory showing that some scholars oppose the black & white nature of either convergence or divergence in defining conversations that are often complex
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? While there are language and immigrant sections, it doesn't seem like a person who actually has experience or research based on this has contributed to the article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think an interesting addition here would be to add any research on communication in the form of emails/texts, etc and the accommodation levels within electronic forms of communicating
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No - I interpret it as a display of facts and not trying to convince readers that the theory is true or not.

Tone and balance evaluation
The overall article is neutral in defining the theory while also having a section on the criticisms of the theory with the factual rationale for questioning the theory. I don't find the article to be swaying in any capacity. I think there are a lot of current/more recent case studies that could be added to make the article more relevant to current readers. Specifically case studies around electronic communications in accommodation. I found a journal article (Communication accommodation in text messages: Exploring liking, power, and sex as predictors of textisms) from 2017 and I think it could bring some additional insight into the article that is more current with times.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes - the source list is quite lengthy
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes however I think there are many more case studies that would help add value to the article.
 * Are the sources current? The article lacks updating in the last 10 years, so again opportunities to add current examples
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes there are many journal articles by Giles himself, the founder of the theory, as well as other scholars - however some articles are missing links
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Some are missing links

Sources and references evaluation
While there are many sources, some links are missing, and what is really missing are current case studies of this theory in action.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Some sections are too long / too wordy - opportunities to break apart sections with adding definitions of terms rather than long examples.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I saw
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think there are opportunities to improve the flow.

Organization evaluation
I really like that the article gives a history of theories that have impacted CAT, and follows with a history, definitions, criticisms, but I do think there are a couple areas to improve flow / ensure each section is needed.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

Images and media evaluation
There are no pictures in this article, but likely not many opportunities to add. Maybe a photo of Giles linked to his current role as a professor in CA.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Not many conversations
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as High Importance with a C - The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.  It it part of WIkiProject Linguistics.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We've had an introduction to CAT in our readings but the article offers more in depth facts and case study examples

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article is well developed as an educational foundation and introduction to the theory. There are opportunities to improve flow, make more concise/easier to read and bring the article into current times with examples of case studies that are more current.

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: