User:REFrost2/sandbox
Article Evaluation[edit]
Selected Article: Politeness Theory[edit]
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
The information contained in the article is relevant to the topic, but the author includes so much information that it comes across quite disjointed. What distracted me most was the overuse of academic jargon. I do not feel that this is an article that could be easily understood by the average person interested in learning more about this topic. Even the brief introductory description left me scratching my head, and it was unclear if the author even had a clear understanding of the theory or if they were simply reiterating information gathered from various articles rather than synthesizing the material. The headings, subheadings, and use of bullet points was also somewhat inconsistent, which was also distracting.
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
I did not come across any claims or frames that were particularly biased. Nearly every single statement within the article included a reference, so it appears that the author was diligent in finding applicable research and using that to guide the article.
Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
Most of the information in the article seemed over-represented - I think a lot more work could go into cleaning up each section so that the content is more clear and concise. For example, in the analysis section there is a numbered list of weaknesses followed by three subheadings, each with an additional paragraph, with additional critiques from various scholars. This entire section could have been consolidated into one section that provided an overview of the critiques of this theory. The author also uses an abundance of examples throughout the article, which at times help with clarification, but again it was just information overload. I feel that one of the highlights of this article is the "politeness strategies summary chart" that is provided. It clearly lays out each politeness strategy along with explanation and examples of each. I think developing this chart just a little further could have allowed the author to remove several of the other sections that cover the same material.
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
Though this article was flagged for having an "unclear citation style," the doi citation links I checked seemed to work properly, but the ISBN links were not working when I tested them. Since a lot of the material in the article was either directly quoted from the source or a close reiteration of the material, the author's claims (if you can call it a claim) does support the source. I think this article could have been much stronger if the author developed their own claims and supporting examples based on the sources rather than simply rewriting what the scholars provided.
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
Yes, the author uses reliable references throughout the article. The majority of the information comes from scholarly articles published in academic journals with the exception of one source, which is an article published in The New Yorker. None of the sources appeared to be biased, and thus there were not any biases noted in the article.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
There are some significant updates that could be made to this article. I did a quick search of articles published on "politeness theory" in the University of Alabama Library database, and there have been a number of articles on this topic since the original article was written in 2016. While there are already quite a few sources for this article, I think it would benefit from being refreshed with some up-to-date research.
Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
The talk page for this article includes a handful of peer reviews along with several comments regarding formatting and style. Several of the peer reviewers suggested that the article was a bit too text heavy, while other offered suggestions for formatting the sections so that it is easier to move from one concept to the next.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
This article was given "C" rating on the quality scale and has been marked as "low importance" on the importance scale. The article is part of WikiProject Linguistics as well as WikiProject Sociology.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
We haven't specifically discussed Politeness Theory in class, but in Baithwaite and Baxter's (2008) chapter titled "Metatheory and Theory in Interpersonal Communication Research," politeness theory was listed as was one of most cited theories in the interpersonal communication field between the years 1990 and 2005. Based on the number of articles that have been published in recent years, it appears that this theory is still a relevant topic that scholars are continuing to explore.
Dawn Braithwaite[edit]
Planned Contribution: There is currently not a Wikipedia article on Dawn Braithwaite. In addition to creating this article, I plan to provide a biographical summary of Dr. Brathwaite's professional career and achievements, along with an overview of Dr. Brathwaite's contributions to the field of Interpersonal and Family Communication.
Relevant Sources:
Braithwaite, D. O., Moore, J., & Abetz, J. S. (2014). “I need numbers before I will buy it”: Reading and writing qualitative scholarship on close relationships. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 31(4), 490–496. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1177/026540751452
Braithwaite, D. O., Abetz, J. S., Moore, J., & Brockhage, K. (2016). Communication Structures of Supplemental Voluntary Kin Relationships. Family Relations, (4), 616. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1111/fare.122
Braithwaite, D. O., Marsh, J. S., Tschampl-Diesing, C. L., & Leach, M. S. (2017). “Love Needs to Be Exchanged”: A Diary Study of Interaction and Enactment of the Family Kinkeeper Role. Western Journal of Communication, 81(5), 601. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1080/10570314.2017.1299881
Breshears, D., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2014). Discursive Struggles Animating Individuals’ Talk About Their Parents’ Coming Out as Lesbian or Gay. Journal of Family Communication, 14(3), 189–207. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1080/15267431.2014.908197
Braithwaite, D. O. ( 1 ), Marsh, J. S. ( 1 ), Tschampl-Diesing, C. L. ( 1 ), & Leach, M. S. ( 2 ). (n.d.). “Love Needs to Be Exchanged”: A Diary Study of Interaction and Enactment of the Family Kinkeeper Role. Western Journal of Communication, 81(5), 601–618. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1080/10570314.2017.1299881
Metts, S. M., Schrodt, P., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2017). Stepchildren’s Communicative and Emotional Journey from Divorce to Remarriage: Predictors of Stepfamily Satisfaction. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 58(1), 29–43. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1080/10502556.2016.1257904
https://comm.unl.edu/documents/Braithwaite_et_al-2016-Family_Relations.pdf
https://comm.unl.edu/dawn-o-braithwaite
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dawn_Braithwaite
https://comm.unl.edu/documents/cv/D.%20O.%20Braithwaite%20CV%20July%202018.pdf
https://contemporaryfamilies.org/experts/dawn-o-braithwaite-phd/
https://twitter.com/dobraithwaite1