 | 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? edit
(Provide a link to the article here.) Self-disclosure - Wikipedia
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate? edit
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I choose this article because it wasn't flagged for having issues like the original article that I chose was and it seemed to have a good academic evaluation of self disclosure that I thought I could contribute to.
Evaluate the article edit
(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.)
Lead section:
The lead section for this article clearly states was self-disclosure is and does a good job of outlining what the topic of the article is.
The following sentences of the lead do a good job of building on the introduction of what self-disclosure is, describing it as it relates to social disclosure theory and intimacy, which are both discussed later in the article.
Everything presented in the lead appears to be talked about later in the article.
Content:
The content of the article is relevant to the topic. The article is broken down into sections that explain self-disclosure in different contexts, these being: in intimate relationships, in therapy, during childhood, on the internet, and in education.
The content appears up to date, and in terms of missing content I wouldn't say that is a problem, but that content could always be added since "self-disclosure" is a broad umbrella term that can be approach in different ways. However, each of the sub-headings does seem relevant to the topic.
Tone:
The article was pretty scholarly and didn't seem to have any noticeable bias as far as I could tell. The article already appears to have a number of edits and contributions of sources that come from scholarly journal articles, which further raises my confidence that this article is not biased or is at least not heavily biased.
Images and media:
This article doesn't have any images or media, but I don't think that takes away from the article. Self-disclosure isn't really shown well through images.
Talk Page:
The talk page had a number of citations made students in a pysch class at Albright College. I think it was helpful to see the kinds of citations that they used which are primarily scholarly journal articles. The conversation in the talk page refers to what is already mentioned in the article, so there wasn't much else to get from the article.
Overall Impression:
The article seems pretty solid and is a good place for me to make edits and add additional information. The reasoning for this I feel like it already explained pretty well above, so I won't be repetitive.
Unsure where to add this so you will see it so here is my annotated bibliography:
- Clark-Gordon, C. V. (2019, May 7). Anonymity and Online Self-Disclosure: A Meta-Analysis. WWW. https://www-tandfonline-com.collegeofidaho.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1080/08934215.2019.1607516
I liked this source because it talked about self-disclosure and anonymity while online. This is a headlined section in the self-disclosure wiki article, so I thought it could be used to add onto that section. This article indicates that self-disclosure and online activity have a positive correlation. It brings in an idea called the online dishibition effect which could be an interesting addition to the wiki article. This article is a scholarly journal article that is peer reviewed, so I believe it is a good source.
2. Hullman, G. A., Weigel, D. J., & Brown, R. D. (2023). How Conversational Goals Predict Sexual Self-Disclosure Decisions. Journal of Sex Research, 60(7), 1068–1080. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2022.2035310
This citation talks about self-disclosure as it related to sexual partners and intimacy. There is a part in the Wikipedia page that discusses intimacy and self-disclosure, so I figured that this article could have helpful insight to that add to the Wikipedia page. The article demonstrates the importance of taking into conversational goals and perspectives when studying communication about taboo topics. Furthermore, the article is from a scholarly journal article that is peer reviewed.
3. Lindecker, C. A., & Cramer, J. D. (2021). Student Self-Disclosure and Faculty Compassion in Online Classrooms. Online Learning, 25(3), 144–156.
This source would work well for the "in education" header of this wikipedia page. As the title suggests, this article is about self-disclosure in online classrooms. It lends into trauma that students self-disclose to faculty, faculty variables that are associated with disclosure, and impact student disclosure may have on faculty. This is a peer reviewed journal article.
4.Mamboleo, G., Dong, S., & Fais, C. (2020). Factors Associated with Disability Self-Disclosure to Their Professors among College Students with Disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 43(2), 78–88.
This reference is also related to self-disclosure and education. It talks about the factors associated with disability disclosure between students and professors. It examines how students past experiences with requesting accommodations and how professors' willingness to provide accommodations relates to how willing students are to disclose a disability. I find this topic to be especially interesting as a college student. Furthermore, this is a scholarly journal article that has been peer reviewed.
5. Cheng, X., Wang, S., Guo, B., Wang, Q., Hu, Y., & Pan, Y. (2024). How self-disclosure of negative experiences shapes prosociality? Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsae003
This article offers interesting perspective into the social outcomes of sharing negative experiences. It addresses how the sharing of negative experiences relates to empathy, and how this relates to prosocial behaviors. I think taking an article that discusses self-disclosure and how that relates to neuroscience would be an interesting addition to the Wikipedia page. This article includes aspects of sociology, psychology, and biology. It is a peer reviewed journal article as well.