User:Dustin Dyke/sandbox

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: Bobo doll experiment
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
  • I have chosen the Bob doll experiment article because of its connection to my Psychology major. The Bobo doll experiment is the topic of discussion in two other courses that I'm enrolled in this semester. Aside from the connection with my other course work, the transmission of behavior through observation is something that I have been deeply fascinated with, for it is appears to be the dominant form of behavioral learning.

Lead

Guiding questions

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • The Lead does include an introductory sentence that is fairly concise and clear. It mentions the primary researcher conducting the experiments, the time period in which they were conducted, an explanation of what a Bobo Doll is, and it offers a brief description of the primary motivation for running the experiments.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The Lead does include a brief description on most of the article's major sections, with the exception of the Criticism section.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • The Lead includes some information that is not present in the article. Namely, the information regarding operant conditioning, however, the Lead does offer a link to an article about operant conditioning.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The Lead is concise. It offers the most relevant information without going into too much detail.

Content

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
  • All of the article's content is relevant to the topic.
• Is the content up-to-date?
  • The content appears to be up-to-date. New research might be available, or in print, that would be supplemental to the topic, however, any such material is not crucial to the main focus of the article.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • As far as I am aware, no content is missing, nor is there any content that does not belong.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral?
  • The article is neutral. It does include a section that discusses the ethics of the Bobo Doll Experiments, however, the information is presented in a clear, unbiased manner.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • All claims appear to be strictly unbiased. Again, the section of ethics discusses opinions held, but does not give an opinionated account on the validity of those ethical claims.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • All viewpoints are given equal representation.
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of any one position. In the most controversial section, "Criticisms", all viewpoints are presented coldly without an suggestive language that might persuade the reader to view any one viewpoint as more valuable than the others.

Sources and References

Guiding questions

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Not all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source. In particular, certain citations are omitted with no indication on where content validation may be obtained. E.g. "The experiments are important because they resulted in much further study related to observational learning. As well, the data offered further practical working hypotheses, e.g., regarding how children might be influenced from watching violent media."
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The sources are somewhat thorough. The "Synthesis" section is, however, lacking sources. It appears to be an accurate synthesis of the experiment, but it is not cited and it is unclear how the information is supported by other sources in the article.
• Are the sources current?
  • The sources are as current as needed. The experiment is itself several decades old, however, newer relevant information to the experiment is included with current sources.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes. The links I have tried appear to be functioning.

Organization

Guiding questions

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • The article is well-written. The jargon used is not overly specialized. When certain jargon is necessary, the authors have supplemented the terms with links that further illustrate their meaning. Others have suggested that some information is too intricately detailed, however, I fail to see where this is occurring in the article.
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • The article does not have 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. Each section reflects major points of the topic. There are no omitted sections that would be necessary for covering the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

Guiding questions

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes, the images included were captured during the actual experiments. They include photos of the children participating in the experiment, as well as the bobo doll used in the experiment.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes, the images' captions clearly describe the images.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes, all images adhere to the copyright regulations.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes, the images are visually appealing in their formatting.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • Conversations range from particular information once present in the article that have since been corrected for to what appears to be a group discussion regarding some sort of assignment given to a portion of the wikiusers posting in the talk section.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • The article is rated C. It is part of the WikiProject Psychology.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status?
  • Overall, the article is generally well constructed and offers the most relevant material in a clear and concise manner.
• What are the article's strengths?
  • The article's main strength is in its presentation of the primary source material that comes directly from the Bobo Doll experiments. The material is not overly detailed, nor does it lack any essential information.
• How can the article be improved?
  • The article has room for improvement in the criticisms section. Although it does offer sufficient information about criticisms leveled at the Bobo Doll Experiments, it does seem to be lacking additional, unessential information that a reader might benefit in having presented on the article page. Another section that could use improvement in the one titled "Synthesis". Although the material included in this sections seems accurate, it is missing sources that support this synthesis.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
  • The article is well-developed. Information that is omitted is done tastefully, and does seem to keep the article concise and clear.

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: Talk:Bobo doll experiment

Article Selection

Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

Article title

Action (philosophy)

Article Evaluation

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
  • The article's content is wholly relevant to the topic, however, the article seems to omit a lot of relevant content.
• Is it written neutrally?
  • The article is written neutrally in regards to the content included, however, the omission of relevant content may be perceived as a bias against that information. For example, the article mentions the philosophical position known as reductive physicalism, without actually mentioning the term, but fails to offer opposing views to this position.
• Does each claim have a citation?
  • Most of the claims in this article lack citations. Only two citations have been made.
• Are the citations reliable?
  • The citations available are reliable. (i.e. MIT Press and Oxford University Press)

Sources

Frankfurt, Harry, 1978 “The Problem of Action”, American Philosophical Quarterly, 15: 157–62; reprinted in Mele 1997. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20009708?seq=1

Class Rating

Start

Option 2

Article title

Quietism (philosophy)

Article Evaluation

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
  • The article's content is wholly relevant to the topic, yet it seems to be lacking information.
• Is it written neutrally?
  • The article appears to be written neutrally.
• Does each claim have a citation?
  • Not every claim has a citation. This is where the article needs most improvement.
• Are the citations reliable?
  • The citations appear to be reliable.

Sources

Svavarsson, S., 2010, “Pyrrho and Early Pyrrhonism”, in R. Bett (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Scepticism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 36–57.

Class Rating

Start

Option 3

Article title

Axiology

Article Evaluation

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
  • The content of the article is wholly relevant to the topic.
• Is it written neutrally?
  • The article appears to be written neutrally.
• Does each claim have a citation?
  • Not all claims have citations. This appears to be where the article needs most improvement.
• Are the citations reliable?
  • Some of the citations added need an additional reliable source.

Sources

Smith, Barry (1986). The Theory of Value of Christian von Ehrenfels. In R. Fabian (ed.), Christian von Ehrenfels: Leben und Werk. Amsterdam: Rodopi. pp. 150-171.

Class Rating

Start

Action (philosophy) article edits:

• "The side effects of actions are considered by some to be part of the action; in an example from Anscombe's manuscript Intention, pumping water can also be an instance of poisoning the inhabitants.^{[citation needed]} "
  • Citation added: Anscombe, Gertrude (2000). Intention. Harvard University Press. pp. 37–45. ISBN 0674003993

"Some philosophers (e.g. Donald Davidson[3]) have argued that the mental states the agent invokes as justifying his action are physical states that cause the action.[citation needed] Problems have been raised for this view because the mental states seem to be reduced to mere physical causes.[citation needed] Their mental properties don't seem to be doing any work.[citation needed] If the reasons an agent cites as justifying his action, however, are not the cause of the action, they must explain the action in some other way or be causally impotent.[citation needed]"

I'm working on editing this section of the article. The author seems to be suggesting that Davidson is claiming that mental states really are just physical states, however, they continue to argue against Davidson's view using exactly that claim.

I plan on adding the following to the end of this section:

Others have objected to the belief that mental states can cause physical action without asserting that mental properties can be reduced to physical properties. Such individuals suggest that mental states are epiphenomenal, in that they have no impact on physical states, but are nonetheless distinct entities (see epiphenomenalism).

Note the added link to the epiphenomenalism wikipedia article inserted above.

I would also like to add an additional photo to the article. This is one that I believe would be useful for illustrating the water pumping action described in the quote above:

Hand water pump in India (3382861084)

PEER REVIEW RESPONSE AND TO DO LIST:

Thank you for the peer review. I noticed that you said I have satisfied all of the guiding questions. As far as the criticism that you left, I do plan on including more concise details with the intention of developing the Reasons for action section more completely. As you probably noticed, I have already outlined issues that I have with the current standing of that section and plan to move forward with clarifying the claims made about Davidson's views. Thank you again for your review!

To do list:

• In response to "It is well-written but could include more details and be more specific."
  • Continue clarifying statements regarding Davidson's claims on action in the Reasons for action section.
  • Outline other viewpoints on reasons for action that either support or oppose those already included in the Reasons for action section.
  • Look for other areas outside of the Reasons for action section that could use further clarification.