User:Wikieditbiz/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: Hypodermic needle model
 * I have chosen this article because it is something I have briefly learned about in the past.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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, the lead does not mention the 2-step or the 1-step flows.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead mentions how behaviorism was originally rooted in the model, but it is not mentioned in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise and to the point.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

 * The article's content is very relative to the topic. It begins with a section on the concept, and then has two more sections that dive into the different type of ways to use or interpret the Hypodermic Needle Model
 * I'd say that the content is up to date. The 2-Step flow mentions how the model is used to study data from Twitter so I imagine despite not giving a year, it has to be fairly up to date.
 * Everything looks like it belongs. I think that the Concept section can be more detailed seeing as how it never mentions behaviorism, even though the lead mentions it as being the start to this concept.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation

 * The article is neutral, there doesn't appear to be any bias.
 * No, it's more of an informational article so there isn't much room for bias.
 * The 2-Step flow is slightly more underrepresented than the 1-Step flow, but that may be because it is much newer.
 * The article makes no attempt to persuade reader in any direction.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation

 * Yes, there are 18 total references, and 9 total sources.
 * The sources range from the 50s to 2016 so they cover a wide range of information on the topic at hand.
 * Sources are as current as 2016.
 * The sources that have links do, in fact, work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation

 * The article is well written, clear, and concise. The reader is able to get an easy understanding of the subject without having to read loads and loads of material.
 * After reading I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The article broken into three, well-organized sections that reflect the major points; the conception, one way to use the model, and the other way to use the model.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation

 * There are no images in this aritcle

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation

 * The only conversation on the talk page is someone discounting the entire article and then someone else asking him/her to change what they believe to be incorrect.

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 published and is overall a good read.
 * It's strengths are how concise and to the point it is.
 * It can be improved by going into more detail on the conception and taking a look at Howard Laswell's discoveries, indicated by someone on the talk page.

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: