User:Paigebrinkley/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: Social penetration theory
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
  • I chose this article because of it's relevance in relational communication studies, and hoped it would help me understand the concept better as we discuss it in class.

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the article begins with an introductory sentence that defines the theory in a simplistic and clear way.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No, there are many sections in the entire article and they aren't mentioned in the lead.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Yes, the Lead mentions the origins and history of the theory which is not present in later sections of the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The Lead is very concise.

Lead evaluation

The Lead of the Social Penetration Theory article clearly states the premise of the theory, along with some information about it's history. Additionally, self-disclosure is somewhat explained. While the writing is clear and concise when describing the subject of the article, the Lead is short and there could be more written about the contents of the major sections.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, all the contents pertain to Social Penetration Theory.
• Is the content up-to-date?
  • Yes, there are several sources from the past 5 years.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • More information about the formulation and history of the theory could be useful.

Content evaluation

The article is very thorough when describing the tenants of the theory, such as the assumptions, applications and stages of the development of a relationship. The information is recent and relevant, however, a section about the theorists who formulated Social Penetration Theory and their work in communication studies would be useful.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the article neutral?
  • Yes, an academic tone is used.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The information is presented in a factual, non-biased approach.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Arguments or problems with the theory seem underrepresented in the article.
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, the tone is neutral.

Tone and balance evaluation

The article has an academic, neutral tone that doesn't seem to create bias. However, a section about the arguments against Social Penetration Theory or problems with it could create more balance.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Some facts that are presented lack citation of sources, like in the onion metaphor section and rewards and cost assessment section.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • There are 31 citations listed. Additionally, further reading links are included.
• Are the sources current?
  • While there are some sources from as early as the 1970s, the majority of the sources are from within the past 15 years.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes.

Sources and references evaluation

The sources and references in the article are mostly thorough, recent and make the page seem more credible and reliable. However, some information that is presented as facts are not cited in certain sections.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, it is very clear and concise.
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • I didn't notice any grammatical or spelling errors.
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • The article is well-organized into sections.

Organization evaluation

The organization of the article is very clear and reflects the organization of other well-written Wikipedia articles.

Images and Media

Guiding questions:

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • There is one image included that depicts the onion metaphor in the Social Penetration Theory.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • No.

Images and media evaluation

The article includes only one image that depicts the onion metaphor. While it is well-captioned and adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, it is very small and positioned on a weird space on the page. Including more pictures and formatting them in a more visually appealing way could've improved this article.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions:

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • There are some conversations about how to improve the article. Critics mention a lack of citations and grammatical errors as some things that could've been fixed.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • The article is part of the WikiProject Psychology, an effort to improve the psychology coverage on Wikipedia.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • We have yet to talk about Social Penetration Theory in class.

Talk page evaluation

The Talk page revealed some critics to the page, but also included some positive feedback. It is clear that many users care about the quality of these pages, so people can obtain the best psychology information possible.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• What is the article's overall status?
  • The article is rated as the start class.
• What are the article's strengths?
  • The article's strength is that it presents the general premise and assumptions of the theory is a concise and easily digestible way. Those who read this article will come away with a general understanding of Social Penetration Theory and it's tenants.
• How can the article be improved?
  • The article could be improved by improving some of the citations in certain sections.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
  • I believe the article is lacking in certain areas and should include sections on the history of the theorists and their work in communication studies or psychology, and a section on the criticisms of the theory.

Overall evaluation

Overall, I believe the article is a good overview of the theory and presents the information in a clear and concise way. However, sections about the history and criticism of the theory would be informative if they were added and is important to understanding the whole concept. Additionally, the article could be improved by adding/fixing some of the citations and strengthening some of the present sections. Furthermore, pictures could be added to make the page more engaging and visually pleasing.

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: