User:Nicolepicard8/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: Compensation and benefits
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

This topic is interesting to me and important as a young business professional who will soon be in the workforce. I have little knowledge on the details of this topic and through this assignment hope to learn more.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead does concisely and clearly describe the topic by briefly explaining that the topic of compensation and benefits is a "sub-discipline" of Human Resources and saying rewards may be tangible or intangible. The lead doesn't include a description of all the articles contents and is missing the basic 4 components of employee compensation and benefits which is revealed in the next paragraph of the article. The Lead is concise and isn't overall wordy or detailed, but may actually be too brief as there is important information missing.


 * 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

The content is relevant to the topic as the entire article is entered around all aspects of compensation and benefits. The content is up to date, the last edit to the article was made September 28,2020. The webpage does include psychology and talks about Frederic Skinner and reinforcement and punishment through Operant Conditioning, which is not directly related to compensation, but does state that many companies rewards systems are based off this theory. The article does not deal with any of Wikipedias equity gaps, or topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.


 * 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
Overall, the article is mostly neutral with clear structure and balanced content. I don't believe any viewpoints are heavily overrepresented or underrepresented. Although, there are a few parts of the article which may be biased. One example is from the "Main Influencers" section. It does state in two different parts "The most important internal/external influencers are.." This may be based on one persons opinion and there is no source to back up this point, this may have been intentional to persuade a reader. Additionally, under "Bonus plans and benefits" when the article talks about Frederic Skinner it states "perhaps the most influential psychologist of the 20th century". Again, this may be trying to persuade the reader based on the writers opinions.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
Not all facts are backed up by reliable source information which is a major downfall of the article. Some sections are flagged and point out that "This section does not cite any sources". The article includes 6 references, the oldest dating back to 2014 which is somewhat current. There is a gap in the diversity spectrum of authors on the webpage, and is missing historically marginalized individuals and groups. All links are working and properly redirecting to new cites.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
The article is clear, concise, and to the point. There is not "too much" information which would make the article difficult to understand or read. There are no spelling mistakes or errors. The article is very well organized and neatly organized into the sub topics of compensation and benefits.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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 posted on this article so these questions are not applicable.


 * 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
The on-going conversation on the talk page is that some facts are too broad and may not apply depending on the country of the reader. Meaning, depending where the reader is located, the information might not be relevant to them at all. The article does say in one part that "In the United States..." and goes on to talk about an area of compensation related directly to the US. This information may not be accurate for us in Canada for example. Some users suggest that it is too ambitious for an article to have details around 200 countries compensation and benefits, as it is likely rules and regulations will differ in each place. We have yet to discuss this topic in class so I am unsure how it will differ.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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
The talk page indicates "changes needed" yet fails to indicate a status of the article. The articles strengths include: up to date information, conciseness, clearly labeled headers. The article can be improved by ensuring there is citations and source information in every part of the article (there are warning banners to indicate this), limitation of value statements, and representation of a diverse set of groups and authors. Overall, I would say the article has good information but is slightly underdeveloped.
 * Guiding questions
 * 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: