User:DamonKramer/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.

I am interested in Toxic Workplace because I believe workplace environment and culture can drastically change the outcomes of a business.
 * Name of article: Toxic workplace
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead
The lead for this article is overly detailed which results in the body of the article lacking substance. I believe they should have moved some of the extra details from the lead into the sub category sections. For example, in the lead It states fact of the USA introducing a bill in 26 states to try to limit workplace bullying. However it is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. That could be a piece that is moved out of the lead and into the body. The lead should also have a better description of what to find in the article. One thing the lead does well is clearly describe the topic of the article.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
The article's content is very focused and relevant to the topic. To my knowledge and the last edited date of the article leaves me to belief that the article is currently up to date. The information inside the article covers the topic well, however it does not address any topics historically underrepresented populations or topics.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
This article makes it difficult to not have a neutral tone. So, this article is presented neutrally and does not have any heavily biased opinions or positions. Viewpoints are presented well. The major viewpoints would be the employees that are involved in the toxicity of the workplace, the managers, and the coworkers not involved in the toxicity problem. There is no attempt to favour one position to another because it is considered common knowledge that a toxic workplace is not a productive aspect of business.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
After checking all of the source link I have found two that currently no longer are working. The sources that are available to be viewed also have flaws. Flaws such as information thirteen years old, or articles that hold very little scholarly information. The large majority of the information does come from one academic paper from Harvard University that holds relevant and precise information. That paper holds plenty of thorough studies throughout. The sources as whole hold little diversity and for the most part are quite disappointing.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
The article is written well and the information is easy to read. This is not the most complicated topic to discuss, so that helps the writers clearly get their information across. After evaluation I found no grammatical or spelling errors within the article. The article is split up well into the two major aspects of a Toxic workplace. As mentioned above, I do believe there is information in the lead that could make up another section of the article.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
There are no images included in this article. This leaves a bland article page.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
Conversations in the talk page are largely based on the title of the article. Originally the article was titled "Toxic Employees". A user changed that name to "Toxic Employee". This was met with reasoning to have the name reverted to the originally because of a book titled "Toxic Employee". Later, it was brought forward to generalize the title to the current "Toxic Workplace" to be able to added more relevant information related to the entire business rather than just singling out one toxic employee. This article has a C-class project quality rating in both the "WikiProject Psychology" and "WikiProject Occupational Health and Safety" sections. Under the same two categories it holds a Mid-importance level in terms of its relative importance to the subject. We haven't yet exclusively looked into this topic, but it has been mentioned in relation to why HR matters.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
This article is appropriately rated as a C-class article. There could be more elaboration in all aspects of this article. This because toxic workplaces are a topic that have been growing over the last handful of years. The lead is in depth and strong, but the body could have more substance in terms prevention, intervention, and resolutions. For now, this article is slightly under developed.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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: