User:CraneD9/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:

Employee engagement ( Employee engagement )


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

I am interested in employee engagement because I think its important for every workspace.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead begins with a simple introductory by giving a clear description of employee engagement by including a brief definition with a given reference. One thing the Lead can improve upon is talking about all of the major sections as it only has some of the major sections and missing a few like the Family Engagement Strategy and hazards. There is a section in the Lead where it talks about employee experience and writes how its relevant to employee engagement, but isn't mention anywhere later in the article. Otherwise the Lead is concise and easy to read without too many details.


 * 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 in this article is all relevant to employee engagement with most of the content being up-to-date. There is some studies that are referred like the Family Engagement Strategy that are older studies but still relevant to employee engagement. If they can get earlier studies then it can improve the relevance of todays employee's. There isn't a lot of any missing content, one note can be that the volunteer engagement should give more information and be elaborated more on. The article gives enough studies and references provided in each section.


 * 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 as it relates to the positive effects and the potential risks and hazards, although it still feels like the article can use more of the negatives of employee engagement cause majority of the text shows the positive side, making the negative effects underrepresented. There is no heavy biases towards a certain position, because they are backed up by statistical study's. In the article there is no attempt to persuade any of the readers.


 * 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

The facts in the article are all backed up by reliable sources like Harvard Business Review and they reflect to employee engagement. Most sources are in the 2000's, although there is still some sources referenced that are retrieved form the earlier 2000's, and can be updated upon. Sources are widely diverse when it comes to authors who are also well educated. At the time, the links that are referenced do work.


 * 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 easy to read, and have words that need to be more specified are linked. The article seems to have no grammatical or spelling errors, and are well organized like it is represented in the Drivers of Engagement section.


 * 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 only has one picture and its only referring to apocryphal story, although it has a good caption that is relevant to management engagement. The picture adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and is visually appealing. One thing this article can have is more pictures and media, as there is only one picture.


 * 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 a conversation in the talk section about how the intro needs to be more clear of richness and complexity and indicating its current ubiquity. The article is rated C-Class and is part of WikiProject Business and WikiProject Psychology. We have yet to talk about the subject in class.


 * 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

All in all I think this article is pretty well written for someone who wants to know what employee engagement is and its strengths are the easy to read and to understand the topic. The article can be improved by furthering the information on how to improve employee engagement and some basic ways to help. I would say that the article is slightly underdeveloped and should be provide a little bit more of information.


 * 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: