User:Theorizethis/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.


 * Interpersonal Communication
 * The activity calls for evaluating a page that is related to relational communication and I felt like interpersonal communication had the most obvious tie-in amongst all the sub category pages I looked at.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it is a single sentence that includes a citation.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead doesn't really do a description of the major sections. Looking at the content list there are a lot of major sections, however not many of those sections are mentioned in the introductory paragraphs.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * In the introductory paragraphs the Lead mentions qualitative and quantitative research methods which isn't necessarily relevant to define and cite in the article, but having part of a paragraph dedicated to that aspect of interpersonal relationship theories feels like it would be good to include links to the Wiki pages for those topics.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead stays pretty concise. This article page is inclusive of not only the term Interpersonal Communication but the various theories that fall underneath that as well. Since there are so many sub categories and headings, the Lead can't be quite as concise as other categories might entail because these various sub categories/ headings have to be related to one another throughout the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all the content is about the main theories within interpersonal relationship studies and the variations within those main theories. Before the theories are introduced there is a bit of context and history about the subject as well.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * A lot of the content doesn't make date references so it is hard to tell how much of what is being talked about and included is up-to-date and relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There are certainly parts of the article that are more developed; some theories have examples and sub categories that list the researchers behind it while others do not. Some categories like the "Cultural influence" under "identity management theory" has a "citations needed" by it as well.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * In the beginning the article speaks on how diverse the disciplinary backgrounds are of people researching the interpersonal relationship field is which in a way could address why the topic tends to be misconstrued or not considered as well as other disciplines, however the article does not mention any historically underrepresented populations/ topics outside of that statement. However, at the beginning the writers include a "cultural and linguistic" backgrounds heading under "Context" to bring awareness to the factors affecting communication and communication studies such as religion, cultural history, and language which hints at the consideration of including more diverse groups into the page.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes. There is no language that paints one idea as good or bad.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, but some sections are more detailed than others.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Certainly the writers of this article had to make a decision on what theories to include which may have been influenced by popularity of topics meaning it is possible that some things are overrepresented, some are underrepresented, and some may not be represented at all.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. There is no use of persuasive language included.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, some claims made about specific theories are missing citations. One is "Devaluation" under "social networks" and I mentioned another that appears under "identity management theory as well"
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There are 70+ sources from a variety of authors throughout a variety of time.
 * Are the sources current?
 * A majority of the sources in the references are from before 2011 (two sources are from 2016 and one is from 2018) and the entirety of the bibliography is from 2016 or before. I'm not well versed in the world of interpersonal communication theory so it could be possible nothing notable has happened in 4-10 years but I'm not sure if that's the case either.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The majority of authors' works are in English and thus reflect the English speaking world, however there is a good balance of male and female.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, there were no undefined jargon.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, every section has relevant sub sections and it is organized from overview, history, context to theories.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Some of the pictures make sense, but there are some that don't add to the article at all like the photos included under the context section. There's one where it shows a group of people standing together and the only thing really tying it in to the subject is the caption which also doesn't work very well either because it speaks about developing an awareness for precautions.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There aren't very many images, 5 in total, and 3 of the 5 use the captions to summarize or give history on the image which helps tie it in to the subject matter. However, 2 of the 5 images and their captions aren't very helpful because it isn't describing how the image relates to the topic.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * All the images occur at the beginning at of the article, but they are off to the side so they don't disrupt a reader's ability to take in or find information.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There hasn't been much activity on this talk page since 2014 which would explain why a majority of the sources are from before then. There is only one comment after 2014 so I wonder how the changes to add sources from 2016 and 2018 happened. The last comments pertaining to the topic is about the page needing a complete overhaul, some comments mentioned the images being a bit out of context and irrelevant like I had noted. Since 2014 though, not much has gone on behind the scenes for this topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * C-Class, level 5 vital article. It is a part of three WikiProjects: Linguistics, Sociology, and Psychology
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia discussions on this topic is less about the actual content because those working on the page are already experts on the topic. In class there would be a lot of discussion on definitions and application of theories, whereas the talk page is a discussion of how to make the page simpler, what kinds of images to use, and how to make the article effective.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * level 5 vital article
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article covers a lot, and is very expansive.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Use the introductory paragraph to look ahead in the article, use more appropriate images with captions, add more recent sources and developments in the subject.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I'd assess the article as promising because there is a lot of information and all of it is relevant. However, I would ultimately call this article poorly developed as it is lacking in some organizational measures even though it is content heavy.

Overall evaluation
My overall evaluation is that this is a good start to an article that already has a plethora of relevant content. There are some missing citations and the sources could be updated, but it's mainly lacking in the introduction and supplementary aspects like images are organization.

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: