User:Melody a01/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence mentions the article’s topic.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It isn’t mentioned in the sentences but there is a table of content provided below.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No, it does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and lacks some information.

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is always room to improve on the quantity of the content, but this article has good amount of information and does not have any unnecessary information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article states that social work has its origin in charity work, where in ancient times was mostly related to providing for the poor. It explains how religious and charity work went hand in hand to help the people in need over different periods in the history. We should note that since this article focuses on the UK viewpoint, it describes the historical facts with respect to the European societies, especially those connected to the British background.

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? The article is coming from a neutral standpoint.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no biased claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints in the “today” section could have been presented with more precision and more details. It was underrepresented.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes, there is a whole subsection on the minority viewpoints to the topic of this article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article is strictly stating facts and information on the specific topic.

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? In my review of the article, I found that the facts are supported by secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?  Yes, the sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current? Most of the sources for this article are old references. Considering that the article discusses the history of social work, this should not be surprising.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I did not find any applicability regarding this article.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Most of the sources of this article are reliable sources. There are plenty of references for this article. Its website references seem to be reliable, too.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, I checked a few of the links and they work.

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is clear and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I noticed only one or two grammatical errors but no spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is well organized is different sections and also subsections.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, it includes images.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the images are well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, it adheres to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The images are dispersed in a very organized manner.

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? For the most part, people are explaining what they are editing and adding to the article. They are also giving feedback and words of encouragement.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as Start-Class on the project’s quality scale and High-importance on the project’s importance scale.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have not discussed this topic in our class.

Overall impressions


 * What is the article's overall status?  I found this article very informative.
 * What are the article's strengths? It is very well organized and very well written. Clear and concise information. It provides a clear view of what it intended to do.
 * How can the article be improved? In some areas the article has room for additional facts. As also highlighted on the page, this article primarily discusses the issue in the UK and does not include a worldwide view of the history of social work. Adding and expanding on this issue from the views of other cultures could be extremely beneficial.
 * 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-developed.

Which article are you evaluating?
History of social work

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am interested in the field of social work. It is important to know information on the history of social work because it educates us on how it has affected our society throughout history. The article explains how and why social work is linked with the idea of charity and discusses its origins. It also elaborates on the roots of social work in all the world religions.

Evaluate the article
After reading the article thoroughly, I enjoyed discovering facts on the history of social work. Afterall, no articles are perfect and there is always room for improvement. The article provides a good overview and fair amount of detail regarding the history of social work.

I found a good flow in the article, where the history of social work is presented very methodically and based on facts and observations. It provides a very organized approach into reading about the history of social work. The article first explains about the roots of social works in ancient times. It highlights that social work was created in attempt to address the problem of poverty in the societies through charity work. In the old times, the “concept of charity” was linked with providing for the poor. The article explains that, as a result, the social work has strong connection with the teachings of major religions in the world.

The article discusses the history of social work mainly from the UK point of view. As a result, all the references are more or less related to the European background. Inclusion of other views from other cultures and societies could be very helpful. However, we should note that this addition requires help from other authors who are familiar with other societies than the UK, as we see some contribution in the “talk” page. Keeping in mind that the article focuses on the view of the history of social work from the UK point of view, it does not seem to be misrepresenting any population. However, caution must be taken when expanded views are included, especially for areas of the world that equity gaps are outstanding.

I found that the discussion on modern social work was not as elaborate as the other sections of the article. I think the article focuses more on providing the background and the history of social work. However, I believe a more elaborate discussion on the evolution of social work and its expanded domains comparing to its origins would be a good improvement to the article. For example, the well-being of a human being is not only measured in their income level. The modern social work cares and deals with both physical and mental health of the people. This is what the article briefly mentions as “humanistic social work”.

The other aspect of social work that could be included is the activities that aim at protecting the rights of minorities and social justice. Most of the article concentrates on the issue of fight against poverty or providing for the economical help to under privileged people. The new angles of social work which go beyond the financial aspects of society require other means that have been historically included. We may want to also consider expanding our review to see when and how the new expanded view of social work adopted and what caused the move to these new directions.

The article manages a good balance for the viewpoints it was intended to include. However, as mentioned before, the article is limited in its scope.

The citations in the article seem to be of good sources and cover a diverse range of authors and publications. Once the viewpoint of the article is expanded to include modern social work, more recent references are needed. Most of the references of this article are old, which fits its intention to provide more of a historical view of social work.