User:Tcjohnson11/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: Interpersonal communication
 * I chose this article because it explains relational communication, it's relevance to mass communication, the research involved and the theories that relate as well.

Lead evaluation
The lead includes an introductory sentence and clearly describes the topic of the article by including a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead is concise and includes what is laid out in the article.

Content evaluation
All of the content in this article is relevant to the topic of interpersonal communication. Most of the references in the article are from 2007 to the present with the exception of a few older dated articles. I think that all of the content in this article belongs - I did not notice anything missing from the article.

Tone and balance evaluation
This article has a neutral tone towards the elements of research and theory. I feel that since the article focuses on this it is not a highly opinionated article. The article is not persuasive, but informative.

Sources and references evaluation
All of the sources in the link appear to be relevant to the information in the article. There are a few sections that could use some more sources in them, such as the theories only including the link to the main article. Some of the sources in the article are older - but there are sources from 2017. The links in this article work.

Organization evaluation
This article is well written. It is informative but keeps my attention to where I don't have to struggle in reading it. I did not catch many grammar or spelling errors. The article is well organized - all of the sections are helpful when going back to references things.

Images and media evaluation
There are a lot of images at the beginning but about halfway through the article the images stop. The images that are included are appealing, relevant and well-captioned.

Talk page evaluation
In the talk page the article was rated as a C-Class linguistic topic. I think that the topic was well written. It is rated as a mid-importance. There are not any conversations behind the scene.

Overall evaluation
Overall I would rate the quality as well-written. After seeing the article is rated as a C-Status and mid level importance it made me go back to look at the article. To be improved it would need to include more media, and go more into depth. I thought the article was laid out very well and included good subheadings.

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: Tcjohnson11 (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC) Evaluation for class]]