User:Embalming Agent/Choose an Article

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

 * Strength-based practice
 * Article Evaluation
 * I chose this article because it is related to my career field of social work. This is my go-to approach with working with at-risk youth and I have seen its effectiveness in my clients as well as myself. The article's lead section provides a brief but thorough overview of the article and reads like a proper introduction to a Wikipedia article. The content is a bit lacking- I would suggest including the standards of strengths-based practices as well as the different types of approaches within them. The "Outcomes" section is unfinished and implies that outcomes of strength-based practices have not yet been evaluated when that is not the case. The article reads entirely neutral and leaves no room for questioning so. The only source that isn't an academic and peer-review publication/scholarly book is the third source (https://www.scie.org.uk/strengths-based-approaches) and could perhaps be replaced with a better one. Though its presence in the article is minor. The article is organized properly. The writing flows well and is professional. There were two grammatical errors and one spelling error that I edited. The article does not include any images, though as it is an article of a social work practice theory, images would not serve to provide a clearer understanding that the text would lack. The talk page consists of a single conversation between one user asking about the proper nomenclature of the article topic with no further replies from others. The article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work. The article's overall status is a stub. Overall, I would say this is a decent article that could be built upon and updated. It provides the reader with a baseline understanding of the concept but it could include more information such as standards and go into detail on what kinds of approaches the theory claims, as well as an updated "Outcomes" section providing current evaluations of the theory.
 * I chose this article because it is related to my career field of social work. This is my go-to approach with working with at-risk youth and I have seen its effectiveness in my clients as well as myself. The article's lead section provides a brief but thorough overview of the article and reads like a proper introduction to a Wikipedia article. The content is a bit lacking- I would suggest including the standards of strengths-based practices as well as the different types of approaches within them. The "Outcomes" section is unfinished and implies that outcomes of strength-based practices have not yet been evaluated when that is not the case. The article reads entirely neutral and leaves no room for questioning so. The only source that isn't an academic and peer-review publication/scholarly book is the third source (https://www.scie.org.uk/strengths-based-approaches) and could perhaps be replaced with a better one. Though its presence in the article is minor. The article is organized properly. The writing flows well and is professional. There were two grammatical errors and one spelling error that I edited. The article does not include any images, though as it is an article of a social work practice theory, images would not serve to provide a clearer understanding that the text would lack. The talk page consists of a single conversation between one user asking about the proper nomenclature of the article topic with no further replies from others. The article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work. The article's overall status is a stub. Overall, I would say this is a decent article that could be built upon and updated. It provides the reader with a baseline understanding of the concept but it could include more information such as standards and go into detail on what kinds of approaches the theory claims, as well as an updated "Outcomes" section providing current evaluations of the theory.


 * Sources
 * https://www.iriss.org.uk/resources/insights/strengths-based-approaches-working-individuals

Option 2

 * Adult Protective Services
 * Article Evaluation
 * I chose this article because I work with Child Protective Services and was interested in learning more about the adult version.
 * The lead section seems strong and informative, although it makes up the bulk of the article and implies a deeper dive into the topic that is missing. It is missing a lot of content. The article does not come across in any way as biased. There are many sources missing- one of which I was able to easily find and add. I had to create a "References" section that was missing. The lead section is fairly organized but the following "Further reading" section is confusing as it reads as a "References" section. Along with the "External links" section together their inclusion in relation to the rest of the article comes across as references for future editors to add information from. The only entry on the talk page is from a bot. The article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work. The article's overall status is a stub. My first impression of the article is that it is unfinished and lacking sources. Through the links provided in the "Further reading" and "External links" sections, it does have some strength as a good start for a student editing an article for the first time. I would improve it by adding a "History" section, a "Statistics" section possibly, a section touching on elder abuse and a few more sections depending on what I learn through research on the topic. I would assess the article in its current state as being poorly developed.
 * The lead section seems strong and informative, although it makes up the bulk of the article and implies a deeper dive into the topic that is missing. It is missing a lot of content. The article does not come across in any way as biased. There are many sources missing- one of which I was able to easily find and add. I had to create a "References" section that was missing. The lead section is fairly organized but the following "Further reading" section is confusing as it reads as a "References" section. Along with the "External links" section together their inclusion in relation to the rest of the article comes across as references for future editors to add information from. The only entry on the talk page is from a bot. The article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work. The article's overall status is a stub. My first impression of the article is that it is unfinished and lacking sources. Through the links provided in the "Further reading" and "External links" sections, it does have some strength as a good start for a student editing an article for the first time. I would improve it by adding a "History" section, a "Statistics" section possibly, a section touching on elder abuse and a few more sections depending on what I learn through research on the topic. I would assess the article in its current state as being poorly developed.


 * Sources
 * http://www.napsa-now.org/
 * https://ncea.acl.gov/
 * http://www.inpea.net/
 * http://www.apsao.org/
 * https://www.accessiblehomehealthcare.com/senior-abuse-awareness-prevention-infographic/

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources