User talk:BeccaWarth/sandbox

Good start, Becca. Continue to add to your evaluation and sources.Carolyncunningham (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
Hello Becca, Here are my thoughts on the article.

Overall

The first paragraph leads you from the people who termed the phrase social presence theory to those who believe it is important. I think a lot of transition and information needs to be put in between this information. Also, there are a lot of grammar issues with the first paragraph. The first paragraph does not reflect the most important information and gives weight to the people involved in social presence theory rather than the theory itself. The sections are well organized but need to be reformatted and checked for grammar. I think the length of some of the sections could increase especially the significance section from the different perspective of contributors to the theory. I do think the article does try to convince the reader in a particular point and that you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article. What the article does well is format the main points into sections. I would suggest spending a lot of time on the grammar, updating the sources and adding information to the first few paragraphs. What I find relevant to my own article is ensuring to review it for formatting, grammar and that all the links are accurate.

Evaluating content

Everything in the article seems relevant to the topic. The only issue that I had was the formatting seemed to be off as the headings were as large after other blocks. I would recommend decreasing what is in bold under key concepts and classifications. Most of the information seemed to date before 2007. I would be interested in seeing if there were any sources that could be used as references and information that may be more current. It seemed that there were current sources that were not referenced and perhaps have more information to add from.

From wikipedia it states that the article has formatting, copy editing and grammar issues. I went through the article multiple times and did not see any major grammar issues. I did put it through grammarly and a few other programs and saw that there were some grammar issues that could be cleaned up. The last few sentences at the end of the article especially need some help with grammar and copy The article does also have a lot of information that could have links to other wikipedia pages as well.

Evaluating tone

I do not think the article is entirely neutral but I would say that it is more neutral than it appears to have a heavy bias. It should be reworded slightly in the significance and conclusion section to help make it more of a neutral article.

Evaluating sources

The sources support the claim in the article. A few of the sources do not have links. All of the links I checked out worked. Not all of the facts had a references attached. I think there could be some work done to improve upon this. All of the sources seem to help support a neatural article showcasing well rounded information.

There has been numerous conversations about the definitions and terminilogy used in the article. The article is unrated and has the score of 58 completeness. Currently the article is part of a wikiproject. "This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): BeccaWarth." Jtackaberry (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)jtackaberry