User:Sccarthy/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article - Jacquelyn Tiffin, Sarah McCarthy, Cassidy Zaffino
On-the-Job training On-the-job training

We believe that on-the-job training is an essential part of how employees develop in an organization. We chose this article because we are interested in how HR professionals are involved in the process of developing and managing on-site training programs.

Lead Evaluation
The introduction in the on-the-job training article starts off concisely but overall the lead lacks clarity, structure and accuracy. The lead does not introduce or describe the article's major sections. In addition, statements are made in the lead which are not present or further explored in the main contents. The lead also includes statements which are unsubstantiated and contradicting to the main contents' information.

Content Evaluation
Although the article provides some content that is relevant to the topic, it lacks meaningful and in-depth content, providing a weak overview of the topic. This article should expand on the ideas and provide more than a definition on the key topics. Since the publication date in 2015, regular updates have occurred and most of the content is up-to-date, however, some of the references are not up-to-date which can lead to irrelevant information for the current day. The article does not deal with any of Wikipedia’s equity gaps nor does it address multiple viewpoints/audiences. The history section provides no meaningful content and did not use any sources to support their ideas.

Tone and Balance Evaluation
The article portrays a neutral tone when talking about on-the-job training, when comparing on-the-job training and off-the-job training, as well as when presenting disadvantages and advantages. The article discusses relatively general concepts and does not make direct claims about on-the-job training. However, the lack of specific information about on-the-job training as well as the other training methods it compares leaves much to discover about the topic. The article as a whole is unbiased but there are highlights of bias such as in the advantages and disadvantages section.

Sources and References Evaluation
There is a sufficient lack in the sources and references. A significant amount of information in the article is not backed up by any sources such as the entire history section. There were only a small amount of sources used. Most of the sources are from non-peer reviewed websites and there are many sources from the late 90’s and early 2000’s which may no longer be currently relevant. There is also missing information in the references such as missing authors and textbook volume editions.

Organization Evaluation
This article is unorganized, difficult to follow, and shows an unclear understanding of the key topics. It is noticeable that the article was edited by many contributions; there is a lack of clarity and should be restructured and rewritten to improve the flow and readability of the text. Although there are no spelling errors, there are plenty of grammatical and punctuational errors. The attempt of breaking down into sections resulted in tedious useless words and discussion. There is an imbalance in the introduction and the section topics that resulted in the article being unorganized.

Images and Media Evaluation
There are no images included in this article. There is only one table which compares on-the-job training with off-the-job training. It consists of broad categories with only a few words per comparison. This keeps the table concise and easy to read/understand but does not add much value to the topic. Including meaningful images and tables to the article is something that could be expanded on to further enhance the topic of on-the-job training.

Talk Page Evaluation
The talk page is almost non-existent as there are no conversations on the talk page; there is only one unsigned comment. The article is part of the WikiProject Business and has been rated under the Stub-Class. This class implies that the article is lacking in its development of meaningful content and overall significance. We have not discussed this topic in class yet, but after a brief overview of the textbook, the article does not cover many areas of on-the-job training such as the development and assessment of the on-the-job training.

Overall Evaluation
With 105 editors and 169 edits, this article still falls far from a professional standard; editing and additional material are needed. A strength would be it is written without bias. Improving the article would require fixing the content, reliability of sources, structure, and balance. The completion status is underdeveloped: provides a basic description of the topic, unreliable/limited sources, and plenty of grammatical errors. This article has a great deal to do before it will be considered as well-developed.

Optional activity

 * Link to feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:On-the-job_training#Question_to_be_Addressed
 * This article is very broad. It would be beneficial to add more depth to the topic and answer questions such as: What kind of jobs benefit the most from on-the-job training and why?