User:Jwedl071/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
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Social work is an interest of mine, has a lot in common with communications, and has greatly benefitted from mediatization.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead starts with a strong introductory sentence that informs the reader about the topic. A concise description of the article is included with the headings of the following paragraphs. The last sentence of the lead provides some information not presented in the rest of the document and it may need to be reviewed. Overall, the lead is clear and gives good general information about the topic.


 * 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

Most of the content in the article is relevant to the topic: history, qualifications, definitions, and profession. However, one section talks about social workers in media. This portion of the article seems irrelevant to the topic. There have been many edits and additions to the article in the past year, showing that most of the content is up-to-date. Finally, the article talks about the women and men responsible for turning social work into a profession, but these founders are mostly white and of European descent. Like many articles in the social sciences, there is no talk about people of colour having an influence on the field.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

Reading the article it seems neutral; however, the topic is about a profession and therefore some authors may have a conflict of interest when editing this work. The article does not try to persuade the reader or offer any biased viewpoints. Overall, the article provides an objective description about the topic.


 * 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 majority of sources appear to be from literature published in North American from the early 2000's to recent years. The majority of information seem to be from reliable sources such as the Canadian Association of Social Workers. All the links that were tried worked and the references provide a wide spectrum of sources and authors.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

The article is easy to understand. There are no, or none that were noticed, grammatical errors. The article is well-organized in clear, concise sections that provide information about different aspects of the topic.


 * 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 only two images provided for the article. They do not add any understanding for the reader or add any visual appeal to the page. However, the images have a clear caption and adhere to the required regulations.


 * 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 conversations in the talk page are mostly about recommendations about possible information to add to the article. The article is C rated but was a good article nominee in 2008. Similar to what we talked about in class, the article talks about the vital role of electronic media in current day social work. It says that mediatization has helped social workers come up with new solutions for clients. In class we have talked about how the media can influence our understanding of reality and how media technologies are indispensable in modern society. In this article the authors see media as a way for professionals in the same/similar fields to collaborate on research. It also mentions about the danger of media technologies as a form of surveillance. Observation is important in social work, and many other social sciences, for coming up with solutions for social issues. However, a fine line between what is ethical and unethical is created when surveillance or media technologies invade a persons privacy.


 * 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

Overall, the article is average. It is clear, objective, and concise, which is a strength. However, it could provide more information about the topic, could have more images, and could try to include viewpoints from underrepresented populations. It would be safe to say the article is underdeveloped, but with some work it could turn into a well-developed article.


 * 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: