User:Arboyle/Evaluate an Article
 | 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?
I think this is an interesting topic that relates to our course work. I also noticed that that page needs additional citation for verification, and there is a call to action to help improve the page at the top.
Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
The article, Organizational communication, "has been listed as a level-5 vital article in an unknown topic". There is a thoughtful dialogue in the talk page, but only 11 total comments so likely safe to add in some edits and do some link clean-up.
The content structure is comprehensive, unbiased, and well-cited. Images have been requested to improve the article quality. Finding images that can be featured here that do not violate copyright could be tricky.
The lead paragraph is written in AP style and I am very tempted to go in and add oxford commas. We haven't talked about grammatical style on wikipedia so I am curious if there is a norm or standardization.
If I were to add to this article I would likely look to academic research papers on the field of organizational communication for new thoughts or theories that have been well researched and can be cited. I would also add in authors who are known in the field of study for potential further reading.