User:Letawskya2/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: (link) reward management
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.


 * This article covers the motivation required to get the most out of the employees in the workplace. This topic is becoming prevalent in today’s society with the new generation of employees wanting a better work/life balance and the feeling of importance in the workplace. Developing a proper reward system for employees will bring an overall positive feeling of importance and subsequently improve the mental health of employees. Chances are if we feel needed and wanted in any environment it will bring out a better performance in us all. This article is important because it stresses the importance of properly rewarding employees for their work conducted. If these reward programs are implemented properly the overall workplace morale will be higher than the average companies thus bringing out better performance and results from employees.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The lead sentence is clear, concise, and explains the article's topic.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead article does not describe all of the supporting articles properly. It is a very short lead paragraph that provides a brief introduction into most but not all of the topics discussed below. This can be edited by our team and bring a more accurate insight into what the article is trying to describe.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead only provides the article topic. There is no extra information included.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise but not fulfilling the full body of the supporting articles. It leaves out history, objectives, motivational theories and the majority of other topics. This lead paragraph can be drastically improved to provide a better understanding to the reader of the information provided.


 * 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


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article content is very relevant to the topic, it explains reward types, theories behind the topic, and the history behind reward systems. The article also goes into depth about performance appraisal.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content is fairly up to date - meaning it has room for improvement in the 2020 work environment but is not out of date enough to need drastic revision. The article can include more rewards involving work/life balance, paid time off and work from home reward options.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All the content in the article is relevant to the topic. It goes into depth about many different parts of reward management. Many of the motivational theories are in the article, and it also explains intrinsic and extrinsic values. I don’t believe there is any information missing other then what should be added to the lead.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps?
 * Yes. The article mentions and talks in detail about fairness in the workplace when dealing with reward programs. It focuses on proper compensation for employees who outperform others and briefly touches on providing accurate salary bonus’.
 * Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No. This article is to the point and addresses fairness as a whole and not with a minority or anti-sexist POV. This can be updated to include fairness based on race and sex to further hit home the point of equity and fairness when rewarding employees in the workplace.


 * 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
 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes. The article is not biased towards over rewarding or under rewarding employees for their work. It clearly describes what reward tools can be used if the employee meets the employers criteria. This article is merely for providing an accurate insight to employers on what their reward system should look like. It leaves the door open for employers to decide and set the standards for company rewards within their organization.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No. The article stresses fairness and accuracy when it comes to rewarding employees for their work performance. It is merely an informational database for the employer to sift through and decide on their own with regard to how to properly reward their employees.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The viewpoints of the theorists are represented well and equally. There is not a lot of information about what theory works the best, or what employees prefer as their reward. However, the article does a good job in not overrepresented  or underrepresented viewpoints.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. Personally we believe that the article is unbiased and strictly provides a guideline or structure for the employer to read through and establish on their own as to what their system should look like. The article mentions how the reward system can be beneficial to the workplace and employee performance; however it does not say that the employer MUST do this in order to have a positive work environment.


 * 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


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The sources used in the article are very reliable. Many are academic in nature and after searching them up they go into depth about the topic. However, some of the sources might not be the greatest.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * After looking through some sources all of them provided all of the available literature that was relevant to the topic that was being conveyed.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are up to date and current. However there is always room to find new, credible and reliable sources that are moving with the workplace environment shift in 2020. For example; working from home or paid sick leave to destress those employees who are ill and should not be forced to come into work or be punished for being sick. Being under the weather is not necessarily the employees fault and therefore the employee should not be negatively impacted by their illness.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, this article is supplemented by multiple authors over a period of time that accurately and fairly describe the motivational tools needed in the workplace. The article does not include any marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes. The links are active and take us to the main source page and the pages are peer reviewed.


 * 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


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. The article has good structure and get’s the majority of the points across. However the sub topic of rewards can be better distributed for the reader in a clear and more precise way.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There have been a few grammatical errors we have found looking through the article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the information has been broken down into specific sections. In the sections of the article the major points of the topic are explained very well.


 * 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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No. The only photograph included is Maslov’s Hierarchy of Needs. The rewards, history, objective, job evaluation and appraisal portions of the wiki article could and should include graphics to further grab the reader's attention by providing visual aid to help comprehend the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the caption explains what the photography is and describes it in some detail. They also say how it is ordered. ( basic needs to important needs)
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes. No copyright infringement on the Maslov picture included.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The one image included is. We will be adding more graphics to the article upon editing.


 * 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


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is no discussion in the talk page portion of this wikipedia article. The edit’s performances were not discussed between the editors. The new edits we perform will include notes for the previous editor to review and discuss with us if they choose to do so.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as C. It is in Wikiproject Business, Wikiproject psychology, and Wikiproject Articles for Creation.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not talked about this in class yet.


 * 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


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Well, it was rated as C. When we read it we believed it was pretty good. However, there are things that will have to be changed and added. It does describe lots of information that relates to the topic. There may be more
 * information that has to get added, we will have to do some research.


 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The information provides the base knowledge that everyone would need to understand this topic. The article goes into depth about some of the topics. It explains the types of rewards in a great way.


 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can include more information regarding reward and job evaluation to start. This article is in drastic need of imagery to help the reader visualize what the information is trying to say as well as better display of the information to the reader.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well written but poorly developed. Some of the information is seemingly copy and pasted with little to know article flow in mind. It needs to be read from the top down and the perspective of the reader. This will better articulate what the article is trying to say.


 * 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: