User:JanellM/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: Social work
 * I've chosen to evaluate this article because when I read the article and it seemed complete. However, being that this is an evaluation, I checked for things that could be a little different or added to the wiki page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead of this article has a lead introductory sentence that is fitting for the social work page. The sentence gives a clear description of what social work is. The lead description of this article could be slightly more concise. I say that because in the lead brief description it describes the term "social" which is something that I believe could be included later in the article, this is the only part of the article that I feel is over detailed. The article does a good job of describing the major sections. Overall, I think that this is a pretty good example of what a lead should look like.


 * 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 within the article is relevant to the topic and is up-to-date. I think the article could do a better job in extending the history section. It gives a synopsis of where this practice started. There could be content added about the recent developments in social work. The history that it currently gives is from 1931, and being that its been 88 years since then I think there's a lot more that could be added. All of the content that is in the article is relevant to the topic, just a few additions would make the article a bt more beneficial.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

This is a neutral article. This is the one section where the article doesn't need any altering. The article is balanced and unbiased. There are no claims within it that are biased or feel like there coming from a particular position. The only portion of the article that I could see as overrepresented is the 'Transtheoretical models' section. I think there are so many different links in that section that make it seem overwhelming, however it does describe all the elements that go into social work so I understand its purpose.


 * 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 of the article are all backed up by a source or sources. However, I did see that there was a source link that led to another article, which isn't reliable. Though some of the sources are other articles, many of the sources come from journals or books on social work, which are reliable sources. The most recent source listed was placed on May 13, 2019 so it is current. I checked some of the links and they do work. However, there were a couple links that were outdated.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * This article is well written and pretty informative. The wording within the 'Use of information technology in social work' section is a little complicated but it is still comprehensible. The grammatical errors take place where there are quotes but those are the only errors I see. I don't know the formation of the article, but I would assume that it's an APA format due to this being a ton of research. The article is well-organized, and the information within the sections relate to the articles title.


 * 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
 * There are images are based on the information within the sections and they do enhance the understanding of the topic. The only downside is that throughout the article there are only two images and one of the images aren't captioned well. It's just a sentence with out sources annotated. I do believe all the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulation. I'm unsure of what qualifies as "visually appealing" but both images are pretty clear and shot well. The second image in the article was a very old image so it's a little grainy, but it is still a good image.


 * 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
 * The talk section for this article doesn't have much in it. The only thing I saw was a discussion about a change in a few of the external links. In 2018 some of the links were adjusted so that they were up to date. The article is a B-class article and it is apart of two WikiProjects, the first being WikiProject Social Work and the other Wikiproject Medicine. Wikipedia doesn't go in-depth about what's wrong with the article like we do in class. It just describes what the article was nominated for and why it didn't meet the criteria to win any of the awards.


 * 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

The article is overall a good, in-depth and through piece of work. It definitely shines when it comes to tone and balance. I think this article does a great job of describing social work and its relevance. The reference portion of the article could be fixed, it could also include less unreliable sources. I think the sections that are grammatically incorrect could be adjusted as well as the wording I mentioned above. I believe this article is well-developed it just needs a bit of editing and adjusting to be complete.


 * 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: