User:AdamTaw/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: Onboarding
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I am interested in understanding the training and acclimation process for new employees, mostly made curious by a few bad experiences when starting a new job.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead begins by clearly explaining the topic in its introductory sentence, and continues on to briefly touch on some, but not all of the sections presented later in the article. The lead is concise and is enough to create a basic understanding of the topic without further reading.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content of the article is in general relevant and somewhat extensive, detailing quite a few aspects of the on-boarding procedures and theories. The content is mostly up to date, but with the most recent source (other than one in 2017 regarding LGBT issues) being from 2011 has not really been updated to reflect how technology and social media have changed the hiring process. The article has a section dedicated to social acceptance, referring to the comfort level of minority and LGBT employees starting new jobs and how likely they are to feel accepted under different hiring circumstances.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral and gives a generally unbiased explanation of how onboarding works in general. It offers multiple tactics and theories regarding the topic and does not give unfair credence to any one in particular.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Almost the entire article is well cited and sourced, unfortunately the section on employee and supervisor relationships does not cite its source correctly. The sources otherwise are very comprehensive and span a variety of information regarding the topic, although the lack of sources from the last few years may be an issue. The sources are written by a very diverse set of authors, many of whom belong to the group they were writing about.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is concise and very clear, although there were a few spelling errors. The sections are well organized and are relevant to the topic.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article includes an image that depicts a model of onboarding, describing the different stages of onboarding employees.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There is very little talk about this topic in particular, but its deletion was considered but did not go through as the article was rewritten. The article is rated C-class by both WikiProject Organizations and WikiProject Sociology, high and mid importance in that order.


 * 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?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article does a good job of explaining the processes that go on in onboarding, and is very concise and easy to read as well as generally interesting to anyone with an interest in HR. The article could use some more recent sources and possibly fleshing out the section on hiring disenfranchised people as that has become a huge focus in recent years. Research into the technological aspects of onboarding may also be an improvement for the article. The article is in general well developed but could use some work.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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:

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: Onboarding
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I am interested in understanding the training and acclimation process for new employees, mostly made curious by a few bad experiences when starting a new job.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead begins by clearly explaining the topic in its introductory sentence, and continues on to briefly touch on some, but not all of the sections presented later in the article. The lead is concise and is enough to create a basic understanding of the topic without further reading.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content of the article is in general relevant and somewhat extensive, detailing quite a few aspects of the on-boarding procedures and theories. The content is mostly up to date, but with the most recent source (other than one in 2017 regarding LGBT issues) being from 2011 has not really been updated to reflect how technology and social media have changed the hiring process. The article has a section dedicated to social acceptance, referring to the comfort level of minority and LGBT employees starting new jobs and how likely they are to feel accepted under different hiring circumstances.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is nuetral and gives a generally unbiased explanation of how onboarding works in general. It offers multiple tactics and theories regarding the topic and does not give unfair credence to any one in particular.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Almost the entire article is well cited and sourced, unfortunately the section on employee and supervisor relationships does not cite its source correctly. The sources otherwise are very comprehensive and span a variety of information regarding the topic, although the lack of sources from the last few years may be an issue. The sources are written by a very diverse set of authors, many of whom belong to the group they were writing about.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is concise and very clear, although there were a few spelling errors. The sections are well organized and are relevant to the topic.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article includes an image that depicts a model of onboarding, describing the different stages of onboarding employees.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There is very little talk about this topic in particular, but its deletion was considered but did not go through as the article was rewritten. The article is rated C-class by both WikiProject Organizations and WikiProject Sociology, high and mid importance in that order.


 * 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?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article does a good job of explaining the processes that go on in onboarding, and is very concise and easy to read as well as generally interesting to anyone with an interest in HR. The article could use some more recent sources and possibly fleshing out the section on hiring disenfranchised people as that has become a huge focus in recent years. Research into the technological aspects of onboarding may also be an improvement for the article. The article is in general well developed but could use some work.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: