User:ShanitaChezick/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: Training and development
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have chosen to evaluate the wikipedia article on training and development because I believe that it is a major component to human resources that a lot of people are not aware of. I believe that training and development also allows companies to increase the effectiveness of their workplace, which ultimately leads to happier employees.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The introductory sentence describes what the goal of training and development is, but not exactly what training and development is.

There is a table of contents that allows you to see the breakdown of the sections in a much easier to notice format, which also allows you to click on each topic and jump to that section of the article.

The lead is concise and not overly detailed which allows readers to not be overwhelmed at the introduction of an article. There also appears to be enough white space on the screen to be able to focus easily enough on the written text.

Content

 * Guiding questions

While the information in the article is relevant to the topic I wouldn't say it is up to date or all completely necessary information for the article.

Considering I do not currently know a lot about training and development, I would consider some of the history to be slightly off topic and not necessary. I'm sure there are a lot of gaps in the knowledge of this article considering it is quite short and not extremely informative. Since the article is speaking of an idea and not a person or place there is no equity gaps or misrepresentation of populations.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is definitely neutral and not biased to make anyone think that training and development is the best thing in the world.

Sources and References
There are some facts/statements in the article that appear to need some references to them (i.e the introductory sentence under the history section). This fact is stated but not cited to any particular source stating where they found the information. Many references are very out-dated, which causes me to wonder how up to date or reliable the information in the article is. All sources cited appear to be from different authors and proves to provide a spectrum of different sources and opinions. Each link I clicked on did take me to the webpage, academic journal, or PDF file.
 * Guiding questions

Organization
The article is well organized in the sense that it is broken down into different sections and subsections to make the flow of the article better. I feel as though the article is missing major components because there is definitely more to training and development than what is listed. The article is well written according to grammar, spelling, and conciseness.
 * Guiding questions

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are no images in this article which does make it a bit less appealing. Adding in diagrams or images would appeal to this article in a way that would allow readers to visualize the necessary information to understand it easier.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There are currently no conversations going on behind the scenes on the talk page of this article. There are, however, scores from WikiProject Business and WikiProject Education. WikiProject Business has it rated at a C-class with mid importance and WikiProject Education has it rated at C-class with low importance.

Overall impressions
The overall status of this article could be considered average. I personally wouldn't say this article is written phenomenally, nor would I use it for a reference on any papers due to the lack of information presented throughout the article. The article could use some improvements by adding in more detailed information of how training and development are used in today's workplace organizations. A major strength to the article would be the fact that they linked many related Wikipedia topics within the article for comparison.
 * Guiding questions

I wouldn't consider this article to be well-developed, but also wouldn't consider it to be poorly written. It is definitely under developed and I say this because I feel as though a lot of references and information is outdated and not consistent with today's view of training and development.