User:Emily M Hoffman/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: Sociotechnical system
 * I chose this article because the term "sociotechnical" implies the topic will involve interaction between society/social norms and technology, both of which are heavy focuses in my course.

Lead

 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence does describe the topic. The Lead doesn't really focus on the article, though. It seems to focus more on the history of the term "Sociotechnical," which is not focused on in the article itself. The lead is overly detailed and not entirely relevant to the topic.

Content

 * 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?

Content evaluation
The content was not entirely relevant to the topic. Sociotechnical systems are about interactions between people and technology in the workplace, but the article tended to focus on sociotechnical theory (rather than sociotechnical systems), human interactions, and efficiency in the workplace instead.

In terms of the content being up-to-date, most of the material referenced is from before 2000, and most of the actual content hasn't been updated in years, which says to me that the content is at least a small portion out-of-date.

When it comes to missing content, I feel as though the topic itself wasn't fully explained. I don't know how a sociotechnical system is designed or how it works. I learned more about the sociotechnical theory, which wasn't what I was looking for.

Tone and Balance

 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the article was neutral and unbiased, though there were a few sentences starting with phrases such as "the key" or "the key factor," which are the only times perspective seems to be skewed.

Sources and References

 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I found a large chunk of the article didn't have any citations at all. There were times when large paragraphs had no citations, and times when I couldn't tell what the citations referenced because they were one or two words into a sentence. Most sources are not current, as they are from before 2000. Only a few sources are not, and those ones have large gaps between them. Most sources seem to be books, so I cannot check their links. The links that are there do work, though they don't all appear reliable.

Organization

 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is not easy to read. Some of the terms were difficult to understand, some quotes seemed misplaced, and there were a few grammar and spelling errors.

The article is well-organized if you are looking at the theory, and not the actual system. However, this article was meant to be about the system.

Images and Media

 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images.

Checking the talk page

 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
All of the conversations have not been updated in years, telling me the article will probably not be improved any time soon.

The article is of interest to four different WikiProjects, three of which have rated it as Start-class, two of the three as High-importance.

In class, we have talked about how technology has been good for people and bad for people. In this Wikipedia, it isn't really discussed at all.

Overall impressions

 * 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?

Overall evaluation
I would say the article is both underdeveloped and poorly developed. It doesn't really delve into Sociotechnical systems at all, despite those being the topic. The strengths are that the article does have good information for sociotechnical theory, so if they wanted to show how the two topics come together it wouldn't take much effort. The article could be improved by actually discussing sociotechnical systems or changing the topic label. If the topic label were switched to Sociotechnical Theory, it would make more sense. Overall, the article needs a lot of work.

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:Talk:Sociotechnical system