User:Meganmckenna1/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.
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because of my interest in the field of social work. I would like to validate the validity of the claims that are made throughout the article and in turn hopefully understand more of what Wikipedia is all about.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead is clear and concise and sums up exactly what is going to be read in the article.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the description is not too lengthy and includes the sections that are discussed later in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead includes all of the information that is present in the article. The article itself does contain information that is not represented in the lead, but that is to be expected because the lead is only an overview and is not meant to be taken in detail.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and to the point, without the reader feeling overwhelmed about all of the information that is to come.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic and describes in detail the numerous specifics of the entire subject of social work.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * By taking a look at the sources used throughout the article, most of the only go back a couple years (2016-2020). There are some older articles, but that is to be expected because of the relevant nature of the information.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The article does a great job of hitting points that you may have not even known existed about the field of social work and everything that is talked about in the intro is represented. There is some content that seems a bit out of the ordinary and like it doesn't belong, but upon reconsideration it actually does because Wikipedia is used for multiple different references/ideas/projects which is why it encompasses such a wide variety of topics.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes the article does address topics related to historically underrepresented populations. This population includes kids and families that are torn apart and are broken by the system. Social work is not constant, so this article represents those difficult to talk about objectives.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article is neutral in the fact that it talks about both sides of the judicial system and how social work is not perfect from either side.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There do not seem to be any.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
 * The viewpoints are spread evenly throughout and both sides are touched on in a way that it does not seem overall biased towards one side.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article is clearly intended to teach and represent the facts of social work.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the facts come from reliable sources, which include doctors, colleges, and other reputable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are well thought out and reflect the whole spectrum of literature that is available about the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of the sources are from about 2016-2020, which are all decently new articles. There are some from 2002 and later, but these articles are important for citing the history of social work and this doesn't discredit the authority of them, new information must also be present to make sure that it is reputable.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the authors all come from different lines of work and are not all from the same field of study or region of study.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is odd in the fact that it has many different topics and jumps from source to source. Also the page looks a bit disorganized with clutter all over it trying to cite everything right then and there instead of just at the end of the article.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Through just looking over most of the sections I did not recognize any errors in spelling or in grammar..
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the article is very well-organized and lays out the information in a timeline sort of way. Each section gives perfectly into the next section with just the right amount of background knowledge in order to understand what is needed for the next section of the article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article includes very few images, which in turn does not enhance the topic at all.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes the images all have captions that describe what is occurring.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * With the lack of pictures, the ones that are on the page are very relevant and also aid the reader when reading the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The conversations that are occurring say that this article should remove their British facts because social work in the U.K. is different in the U.S. They just wanted people to stop using this information because it did not pertain to the U.K. Also people were concerned about the overlap between social work and physiology and that they needed to be more specific in writing.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It does not seem to be any other part of WikiProjects, just interested users/editors.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia lays out all of the facts in a way that no side is being misrepresented. In class we are subjective and take internal sides to each thing that we learn about. Wikipedia gives us a chance to be objective about our learning and discuss an effective way to fix problems.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's overall status would be ready to publish. There are very few mistakes, if any, making this ready to be put onto the internet.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths are that it is overall very detailed and includes many different sources and ideas to encompass everything about social work and the topic of social work.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could include some more pictures to make the visual readers have a reason to stay. The article also looks a little sloppy visually, so I would recommend cleaning it up a bit and making it seem a bit more organized.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would assess the article's completeness by giving it a ready to publish stamp of approval. It is well-developed and strong in its concepts and articles throughout.

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: