User:WeiZou/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: Expectancy violations theory
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. : This expectancy violations theory has been assigned to me as my wikipedia page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it does so by stating  “Expectancy violations theory (EVT) is a theory of communication that analyzes how individuals respond to unanticipated violations of social norms and expectations.” as the very first sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is no brief description of the articles major sections, each section addresses the topic in depth.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead included information that was covered in the article entry by giving in depth analysis on topics within the Expectancy Violations Theory such as: proxemics, personal distance, response to personal space violations, level of liking and relationship to the violators, and violations of social behavior expectations.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, however does not offer much detail and explicit examples of information covered in later paragraphs. By reading only the lead, it does not draw upon an image of how the article is structured to the audiences.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article’s content is fully detailed and expanded around the topic by expositing the effects that Expectancy Violation Theory produce in interpersonal verbal and non-verbal communication.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content is up-to-date, and it was last edited on September 12, 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The only content that is missing directly on the article’s page is the readings that the author hyperlinked, and the article lacks diagrams and illustrations that clearly models examples that the contributors provide in the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral due to its objective language and prose.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article presents a balanced overview of the theory by first presenting what the theory is and then giving examples of its applications in various contexts. The article also include criticism of the theory and suggests there is still a need for further development towards the end of the article entry.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * In the article, the interpersonal non-verbal communication has been presented with over loaded details, however, the effects of EVT on verbal communication needs further presenting on the details. Also, the article fails to interpret the effects of EVT between communications with humans and animals.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article does attempt to persuade readers towards building an awareness about the criterias of expectancy violations. These criteria listed in the article by the contributors causes one to be cognizant of one's' action when communicating with others either in an intimate relationship or platonic relationship in an effort to avoid making a violation.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not all the facts in the article backed up and referred to a secondary source and there are still further enhancements needed.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The article does cite and link references to more literature to peruse and further explore the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * There are many sources that the article references with the earliest reference being from the year 1976 and the most recent is from the year 2015. Therefore there is a balance of  outdated references with recent references. Overall, it is pretty comprehensive.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links are still working.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is clear, and concise. I would only suggest that some sections with very large and long paragraphs are chunked.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no grammatical or spelling errors that I have come across while reading the article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is broken into sections with the appropriate subheadings labeled above it that reflects the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article does include some images that barely assist with enhancing the understanding of the topic. And there is no necessity of the existence of those images in the article. Instead, the action of replacement is needed.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images do contain captions, but serve no purposeful use.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The images are appropriate and does not seem to violate wWikipedia’s copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images are located on the far right side of the article, and does not interfere with the flow of the text, and does not reflect the main topics of the content. Instead, it distracts audiences’ attention away.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Conversations behind the scenes about how to represent this topic dates back to the year 2006- 2017 that the article is too text-heavy, and that infographics should be included, grammar and spelling mistakes, and checking references were discussed.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This project was rated a C-class on the project’s quality scale, and mid on the project’s importance scale. The project is part of the WikiProject Psychology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Here are similarities and differences between the ways Wikipedia discusses the topic and the ways we have talked in the class. In similar, both examine the theory based upon studies of ontology, epistemology and axiology. However, it differs by Wikipedia tending to cover a wider area of information with heavy texts that cause more difficulties to understand.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article is informative article.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The strength of this article is its organization that break down the topic into different sections with the appropriate subheadings. This helps visitors to quickly find and read about a particular area of the theory.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by including more purposeful visuals such as diagrams and infographics.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article is informative, but requires further refinement to make the topic more accessible and comprehensible for visual learners. And also, it needs further enhancements with more current secondary resources and researches that offer more notative perspectives from recent.

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: