User:Rciszewski/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: (link)
Interpersonal communication: (Interpersonal communication)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
It was one of the only ones on this topic that was a complete article. There were limited articles and some of the others were very minimal.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
It does.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Yes it refers to the six areas that it will cover.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
No, it does not appear to, it is a long article but it does look like they are all covered.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
No it is concise, it does a good job of laying the ideas out in a paragraph or two.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Absolutely, it covers the topic in great detail and makes good use of resource martial.
Is the content up-to-date?
Without being an expert in this field it appears to be up to date, There have been many revisions since its original post with the last being on September 4th of this year.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
I could not find any "missing" content and the rest seems to belong.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
It does not appear that it deals with any equality gaps or related to underrepresented populations.

Is the article neutral?
Yes.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
No.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
It is a well written neutrally with fair balance.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
No, it reads more informative then anything else, such as a textbook.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Yes, I followed a couple of sources and they were reliable.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Yes, there is reference to works from the developmental of the theories referenced and more modern work in the subject matter.
Are the sources current?
Yes, like I stated above, some of the theories are quite dated but the references to them is appropriate.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Yes, some of that has to do with the wide spectrum that this article covers.
Check a few links. Do they work?
I check several and they all worked.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Yes it reads like textbooks I have read in this area.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Not that I was able to catch.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Yes the paper has a nice flow and is presented in a manner that make it easy to follow.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
There is a small amount of images and there addition to the material is minimal.
Are images well-captioned?
There captions are descriptive, but do not add to the paper.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
I think they do, they appear to be clip art that should be open ___domain.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
They are not bad pictures they just don't add much.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
There is quite a bit of conversation behind the scenes but, it appears to be mostly students that were assigned to make comments.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
It is not part of WikiProjects and could not seem to find a rating.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
We have not discussed this topic in depth so, I can't answer this question.

What is the article's overall status?
It is current and active.
What are the article's strengths?
The depth and scope of the subject matter in an area that lacks papers.
How can the article be improved?
The visual aids could be updated and offer better insight in to the subject.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
It is a well developed and complete article.

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 — ~~~~