User:Sgilbreath/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) Relational dialectics
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this topic because it focuses on communication patterns among people who are in close personal relationships. It explains how conflicting communication patterns lead to tensions in these relationships, which I find personally interesting.

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise. There is no extra fluff or unnecessary information. At the same time, it adequately gives the reader an accurate impression of what the article contains.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content up-to-date? Yes. The 2019 edits were mostly minor copy-editing corrections, but in 2018, relevant citations to journal articles were added. Baxter's theory was first proposed in 1988.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article attributes the theory to both Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery; however, only Baxter is mentioned in the article, and the link for Montgomery's name goes to a blank page.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the article neutral? I think so. The article consists of information on the theory and its possible applications. There was one statement that might not be considered objective. The article claims that lying does not always affect communication in a major way. I'm sure some would disagree.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? No
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are 43 citations in the reference section. Eight of those were attributed to Leslie Baxter.
• Are the sources current? There are a handful of sources dated within the last five years. The rest are around 20 years old.
• Check a few links. Do they work? I checked four links, and they all worked.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, though there are some pretty complicated technical terms that are not self-explanatory and might make it difficult for some to understand.
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

Guiding questions:

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, there are two images, but they in no way enhance understanding.
• Are images well-captioned? One is; the other doesn't really make sense. One is Yin and Yang, and it simply says so in the caption. The other is captioned "Opposites," but it is unclear why. It seems to be a twisted staircase.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? They are both licensed under the Creative Commons 2.0.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not particularly

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions:

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated B Class. I do not think it is part of a WikiProject, but it has been reviewed and rated by the WikiProject. Is that the same thing? I didn't think so.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Turner and West (2011) also write about Relational Dialectic Theory. They cite Baxter and Montgomery's theory in 1996 literature, while the Wiki article cite it as 1988. The wiki article allows for much more in-depth discussion of the topic because of limited space in the brief overview in Turner and West. In the Wiki, there are four core concepts that do not match the four main assumptions in the Turner and West text. Maybe they are different things?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• What is the article's overall status? The article was once in danger of deletion, but after a Talk Page discussion, was kept upon contingency that it be rewritten.
• What are the article's strengths? It gives a broad overview of concepts related to Relational Dialectics and how it could be applied in situations and research.
• How can the article be improved? After reading an accusation on the talk page that almost all of the lead is a word for word quote, I looked it up. It is, but how else would one describe a definition of a scientific term? However, there are no quotation marks, so that seems to go against Wikipedia rules. One commentator on the talk page said that her writing was pretty much "incomprehensible psychobabble," harsh. Maybe it does need less jargon and more vernacular.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think the article is well-developed. I would think not many more additions and explanations would be needed in order for this article to move to Class A rating. Obviously, many people disagree with me (per the Talk Page). I would be interested in getting your opinion on the article.

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: