User:L.luu32/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: Recruitment
 * We have chosen to evaluate this article on recruitment because we have an interest in learning about the process of choosing the right person for certain roles in an organization.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

In the Lead of this article, the introductory sentence lists the steps taken to recruit a member into an organization. The sentence is clear and concise, making it easier to understand what is involved in the recruitment process. Aside from the introductory sentence, the rest of the paragraph does not mention more or go much into detail about the major sections in this article. The article mainly focuses on the areas of recruitment mentioned in the first sentence. Everything mentioned in the Lead is present in the article, but the majority is not discussed throughout the article, and is not considered a major component of the article. It discusses more about who does the recruiting within an organization, rather than the relevance and importance of recruitment. For example, the last sentence of the Lead discusses artificial intelligence, but artificial intelligence is only mentioned once in the screening and selection section. Overall, the introductory paragraph is concise in a way that does not overwhelm the readers, but at the same time, the overview could have been more detailed. Rather than just listing the components of recruitment, the overview could have provided brief descriptions on these major components that are important in the process of recruitment.


 * 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

All the content in this article is relevant to the topic of recruitment. This article provides information on finding the right candidates to fill certain roles, how individuals are approached by recruiters, strategies recruiters use to select these individuals, etc. According to the reference section, the most recent edit is from a few months ago, meaning all the content is up to date. Since the article barely mentions the interview process, there is no information on interview methods that could be used by a recruiter. This information might be useful for people who are curious about these methods, and want to learn more about how the interviews work. In the section, Screening and selection, the article recognizes the equity gaps of diversity and disabilities. It discusses the benefits of hiring different groups of people, despite their differences. The article addresses the different tests and rules that apply to the recruitment process, and how it affects certain groups of individuals, as well as the effects it can have on a business.


 * 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

Overall, I would say that the article portrays a reasonably neutral tone throughout. The authors have presented a fact-based explanation of the recruitment process and other details related to this topic. They objectively explain the roles and perspectives of different groups of people, operating at various levels of the business, who are related to the recruitment process. Details like this contribute to a more balanced and neutral article. There are no outstanding claims that seem to be biassed towards one particular position or side. This article is not so much debating opposing positions. Rather, it is factually presenting information about the topic of recruitment. The viewpoints expressed in this article are, for the most part, equally represented. The article includes the viewpoints of managers, employees, business owners and third-party providers when it comes to recruitment. The authors explain different models of recruitment as well as various approaches to the recruitment process. They also provide viewpoints pertaining to the employment of disabled workers and highlight the importance of diversity in the workplace. The different viewpoints presented in this article are appropriately diversified and equally represented. However, more information/representation on the topic, in general, may improve the effectiveness of the article overall. No, this article is not a persuasive article and does not serve the purpose of convincing readers that one position is better than another. It objectively presents the details of 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

Yes, there are 36 sources referenced throughout this article. The authors have cited at least once per paragraph which is standard when contributing to a Wikipedia article. Any quotations, hard facts and controversial claims included in this article are appropriately cited at the bottom of the page. The secondary sources used to support this article seem to be reliable. For example, authors have included referenced material from sources such as Forbes, the Oxford Handbook of Recruitment and Cornell HR Review. These sources are reliable because they are independent sources, they are known for fact-checking and neutrality and they are published by reliable publishers that represent a general consensus in the field. The sources referenced in this article accurately reflect the basic information on the topic of recruitment. Various highly regarded websites and academic press’ are referenced in this article which means the sources are appropriately used to support this article. However, compared to information about the recruitment process provided in the textbook and other available literature on this topic, I would argue that the sources could have been more thorough in order to provide more depth on the topic of recruitment. The source’s dates of publication range from the years 2001 to 2020. The majority of these sources were published between 2010 and 2020. Overall, the sources used in this article are relatively current. Yes, the 36 sources used in this article were written by authors of various cultural backgrounds, social statuses and professions. The contributions from the diverse spectrum of historically marginalized individuals included in this article provide different points of view on the material being presented and strengthen the overall accuracy of the article. Yes, all the links that I checked worked successfully.


 * 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 fairly clear and easy to read. However, additional information added to this article will improve its readability. As the article continues to develop, the processes demonstrated in the article will become more clear and easy to understand. There are a few punctuation and sentence structure issues within the article, but it can still be easily understood. The article still requires some editing to improve its overall quality. There are no major grammatical issues that affect the readability of the article, but minor adjustments should be made. Overall, the breakdown of this article is effective for the information displayed, but I think there could still be some further sections added. This topic can be expanded on even more to better reflect the key parts. I think that there could be even more information explaining the entire recruitment process, which will create more sections to enhance the overall effectiveness of covering the major points 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 no images included in the article.


 * 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

Overall, there is very little conversation happening behind the scenes on this topic. The only conversations present are from the merging of this article with other related topics that fit well together. The most recents edits to this article were done in April 2020, but prior to that, the last edit was done November 2019 indicating there has not been many recent edits or updates to this article. This article has also been the topic of the Wiki Education Foundation supported assignments. This article currently has a rating of Start-Class on the quality scale. This means that the article is developing but still requires additional materials and editing. It is also rated high on Wiki Project's importance scale. A High rating represents a highly-notable subject. This article is also in the scope of WikiProject Business. Currently, we have not discussed this topic in detail in class. However, by looking at the textbook, I can tell that we will discuss the processes involved in this topic in more detail than the article describes. I think there is more information related to the recruiting process than what has been included in the article.


 * 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's overall status is underdeveloped, but is still able to provide the basic concepts of the topic. This article should continue to be worked on and edited to increase the article’s quality and effectiveness. A few of the article's strengths are, staying on topic, staying neutral throughout, and unbiased opinions or claims. After reading about recruitment in the textbook for this course, there is more about recruitment that hasn’t been mentioned in the article. More information and detail can be added to improve some sections of the article. Adding more information to this article will ensure that the article is well developed and updated. Minor adjustments and editing will also improve the overall quality of the article. The article is a bit underdeveloped. It covers all the major components and is descriptive enough for individuals to understand the general idea of the recruitment process, but some areas could be expanded on. For someone looking for a very general description of recruitment this article would provide the basic information. However, someone looking for a detailed and informative article on recruitment, this would not be the best choice.


 * 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:

Group - Lilian, Caitlin, Emma