User:Amandab430/Evaluate an Article

{| class="wikitable" Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * Evaluate an article

Lead section
A 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.


 * 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? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * 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
Wikipedia 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.


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

Sources and References
A 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.


 * 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?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * 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

 * 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?

Talk page discussion
The 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.


 * 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

 * 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?

Examples of good feedback
A 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.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }

Which article are you evaluating?[edit]
Ethics in business communication

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit]
I chose this article because effective communication allows businesses to succeed and for both sender and receiver to understand the same information within.

Evaluate the article[edit]
Ethics in business communication is an article that could certainly benefit from revision. Some suggestions for improvement are listed below :


 * The opening sentence is to the point by explaining the importance of information being shared accurately and effectively, but by calling that an "ethical issue" it does not seem like a communication matter anymore.


 * Within the content there are good points like conveying the point without offending the audience, maintain the relationship with audience, and avoid withholding crucial information. Unfortunately, there is not much research or any sources that back these points or give example as to how to use them properly. There is also a general lack of content beneath each point, which leaves room for the reader to remain confused and undereducated.
 * The tone within this piece can be considered uncertain and even incoherent throughout. Developing a consistent tone and writing in the same voice throughout allows the piece to be strengthened and allow the reader max readability. Also, inclusion of specific examples, such as stated above, like underneath each overview point, would help provide a balance of viewpoints and information. Without a well written piece, there lacks a sense of confidence by the writer and the audience is less likely to learn what they strive to.


 * The sources and references are limited and this leads to a lack of quotes, examples, and research provided to aid in the explanations. There is a distinct lack of proper and thorough citation and any instances of original research that is copy and pasted without a quote or citation and all plagiarism from other articles should be removed as well.
 * This article contains significant grammatical errors that leave the piece feeling immature.
 * There are many pieces of information that feel strong, but could feel much more of prevalence with stronger sources to back it up or descriptions that are not as short and abrupt. An example of this would be bullet point 3, avoiding withholding crucial information, which could certainly be explained in a stronger manner.
 * Within this article, we can see that the writer believes in the idea of ethical communication within a business to aid it and create stronger workplace relationships, such as under bullet point 4 where they state, "If an organization functions on the base of value systems common to both the top management and the employees, mutual respect between them will be present. A sound and healthy value system can make way for ethical communication."
 * The article's talk page indicates the page was proposed for deletion by a previous editor who stated there is no relevant page history and the confusion by using the words "ethical issues" rather than business and ethical communications led to nothing but a scramble of words on a page. There is of course a contested deletion that defends the importance of understanding ethics in business communications, which we never doubted, but revision should certainly be put up to consideration. The article has previously been used as part of two Wiki-Education Foundation-supported course assignments.

Overall, the topic and the content of this article are not coherent and the reader is left thinking about what they read, and not in a positive way, rather than properly informed. The information portrayed about business communications practices is crucial for those who are reading it to be correct yet, there's a lack of history, research, and data that is specific to ethics in business communication. When sources are used in an article like this one, it is important that they be well respected or legitimate so that readers are not led the wrong direction.

Top suggestions for improvement:


 * expand and replace research/sources as necessary, using reliable and respected cited sources
 * remove any instances of poor grammar/spelling/sentence structure so the piece seems well written