 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It goes with my course material and I find communication theory interesting.
Evaluate the article
The lead section does a good job thoroughly but concisely explaining how communication, theory, and communication theory coincide. One thing I would maybe change is to link examples of "empirical, conceptual, or practical communication questions" at the very end of the first paragraph.
There doesn't seem to be any tonal biases and all claims seem to be neutrally balanced which give it a very factual feel.
There are nearly 40 sources which are used appropriately and smartly along with over 20 links to further readings regarding communication theory. There are also a multitude of multiple blue names linked that redirect the reader to: "Prominent historical and modern foundational communication theorists."
There are only two images used on the entire page. I think we could find plenty of graphs and other useful images that could bring a more visual approach to learning about communication theory. More images/graphs could help put an image to certain ideas and models talked about in the chapter.
On the talk page, the latest post is about the information being spot on but the article seems too academic for the person acting as editor. I'm not exactly sure what that means but my best guess is there's either not much left to say to improve this article or it has no life to it.
Overall, I believe the articles layout is very easy to read and navigate. There are plenty of bold faces headings that are easy to spot and find. I do wish there were more visual aids to represent more of the ideas further and some blue words linked with certain ideas that could provide examples for subjects not everybody is familiar with.
| Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It goes with my course material and I find communication theory interesting.
Evaluate the article
The lead section does a good job thoroughly but concisely explaining how communication, theory, and communication theory coincide. One thing I would maybe change is to link examples of "empirical, conceptual, or practical communication questions" at the very end of the first paragraph.
There doesn't seem to be any tonal biases and all claims seem to be neutrally balanced which give it a very factual feel.
There are nearly 40 sources which are used appropriately and smartly along with over 20 links to further readings regarding communication theory. There are also a multitude of multiple blue names linked that redirect the reader to: "Prominent historical and modern foundational communication theorists."
There are only two images used on the entire page. I think we could find plenty of graphs and other useful images that could bring a more visual approach to learning about communication theory. More images/graphs could help put an image to certain ideas and models talked about in the chapter.
On the talk page, the latest post is about the information being spot on but the article seems too academic for the person acting as editor. I'm not exactly sure what that means but my best guess is there's either not much left to say to improve this article or it has no life to it.
Overall, I believe the articles layout is very easy to read and navigate. There are plenty of bold faces headings that are easy to spot and find. I do wish there were more visual aids to represent more of the ideas further and some blue words linked with certain ideas that could provide examples for subjects not everybody is familiar with.