User:Ssierra6/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: Theory of planned behavior
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this because I am studying this in my social psych class and also behavior goes along really well with this class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does not. It sort of summarizes it, but not clearly and more is added then says in the lead paragraph on main topics highlighted.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No it does not
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I feel like it is under detailed, and can be more specific with the other points in the article it mentions.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes it is. I feel if the lead statement did include more of the description below it would tie in everything nicely.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes it is mostly just a history on the theory of planned behavior. But there are some modern applications. There is a study from 2019 referenced in the article
 * and some others from 2013 and below.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Maybe more of a history of Icek Ajzen and Martin Fishbein could be included instead of just mentioning their names and that is it.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

Yes I would say it does put on a good attitude of being neutral. I would say in the end when the strengths and limitations is mentioned the are very good at mentioning some studies that have been conducted on either side of the argument. I would say that there is not any particular biased claims because of the style of writing and the studies that are mentioned. The studies are mentioned and then the author does not provide much of an opinion on it, rather the author just summarizes the finding. I would say that there is not persuasion, because the author really involves many real world applications, and not just one they praise above the other. They just mention the results that have been found about the studies that says this theory has had a positive effect here. They could probably mention more studies of where the theory of planned behavior did not apply in that situation.


 * 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

Yes the articles have very good claim to them. Very reliable sources and no blog posts and others like it. I would say also that the articles are through because the author mentions a lot of real world applications and the author briefly mentions the findings and then you can find the article to follow up on it. It is good way of doing it I think because you don't want to take away from the article to much, by having a huge finding for each like 20-30 real world applications. Yes the source are current, but it would not be bad to follow up on some of these studies. Yes all the links I clicked on worked.


 * 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

I would say that the article could probably use some help. I feel like it is not really tied well in together. The author just writes the findings. But maybe this is just the way it should look like so you do not persuade the reader to decide one to the position. I feel again that it would be nicer to read if the lead incorporated more of a summary of the body of the article. The body does have good headers and does separate each category/topic well.


 * 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
 * No there is no images at all. I feel that it would be very beneficial to have some images. It does have a formula that makes it more interesting in reading.


 * 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

Clicking on the talk page there is no conversations going on about this topic. The article is rated as a start-class. It is apart of the Wiki Psychology project. I feel like it goes more into depth than we did in class and also my teacher had a different way of summarizing the material. Instead of using the formula, he used what he called the ABC's of behavior taken from our McGraw Hill Textbook.


 * 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 to me is still underdeveloped. The strengths I think is the sources of the articles. It just needs to tie the concepts in a better way. Along with a better lead. Also on the article talk page it says that this article has not yet reviewed a rating on its importance yet.


 * 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
I think i did it right?


 * 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: Talk:Theory of planned behavior