User:Jcurtis4/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Human services

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.) I chose this article because I feel strong passion towards improving human services for myself and my fellow man. Of course it matters, because everybody has needs that must be met, and we can only improve if we help lift each other up. I find the general topics it discusses such as education, problem-solving, and health care to be some of the most important human services.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

-The lead section is serviceable, although the initial phrase "applied knowledge base" is too vague and not concise/easy to understand. Furthermore, the lead highlights tools and methods involving technologies, and yet I can't find enough clear information thoroughly describing said tools and tech. In the articles favor, it does a fantastic job explaining the academic programs mentioned in the lead.

-The article's content is certainly completely relevant, no issues there. However it seems a tad bit outdated. The most recent of sources listed date back to 2015/2016... 6-7 years ago. The article only really focuses on programs available for human services. The article does not address historically underrepresented minorities.

-The article is very neutral. The only thing to criticize is the lack of information relating to 3rd world countries that need human services the most.

-Not all claims are directly and concisely backed up with sources, although a good portion are, more sources are needed. The sources that are given are thorough and contain secondary sources, and the links do work. However again, there is not a let of minority representation in the articles. The sources again are not current either, the latest ones being about 6 or so years old.

-The article has some grammatical and spelling errors. Some of the phrasings are not clear and need review. The information is presented in a wordy manner using complex terms without giving any concrete definition via links. Some acronyms should be present in the headings. The lead discusses many different facets of human services, and yet the only topics that are thoroughly described are the academic programs available and their history.

-The article completely lacks images/media and would greatly benefit from some being added, especially photos of the programs offered.

-The talk page highlights specific errors in the article, such as link errors, spelling errors, vague wording, and lack of describing points of major interest related to human services- i.e. specific job titles one can get.

-The article's overall status is serviceable and is better than having nothing relating to human services. The article's big strength is the information given about human service programs offered. Its weakness falls on being 6 or so years old, not expanding enough on other important aspects of human services, some of which are even mentioned in the lead, lack of minority representation, lack of 3rd world representation, and lacking any thorough content beyond the human service programs. This article has so much untapped potential that should be improved upon, some of which is already clearly visible in the lead but not effectively expanded upon... it is underdeveloped.