User:Malex7980/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

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?
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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

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?
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

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?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

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?
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?
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.)
Check a few links. Do 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?
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

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?

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?
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

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Human services

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this because it is of interest to me as I plan to figure out my career after graduation. I liked that this article wasn't filled with too much information but enough information to be able to understand and stay interested.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

This article had a great lead section that described the topic of the article and I think that although it described some of the sections in detail it was unclear which sections they were talking about. The section headings weren't really mentioned in the lead. The articles content is related to the topic and it covers the broad area of interest for human services. This articlIe wasn't intended to give detailed thorough information on each aspect of human services but to just provide a better understanding of what a human services professional would do. It addresses minority groups, and poverty issues in human services as well as social justice. I believe the article is neutral in nature. The information provided is simply to give an overview of what human services is, how to get into the field, the populations it serves, potential careers and ongoing education and tools. There are over 30 sources used for this article ranging from ranging from 1971-2022 and the sources are not from just the United States but Canada as well, because the article does briefly mention human services in Canada. Some of the sources just had names listed and added that the full citation was needed. I did check a few links and they worked for me. I think the article is clear, concise and to the point. It gives enough information but not too much in each section where you could forget what was said before. I did not notice grammatical errors and the sections were broken down into a readable paragraph or two. The article contains the picture of the front of the Metropolitan College of New York which was one of the first colleges to offer graduate in Human Services in 1974. The picture was correctly cited as well. On the Talk page there is just discussion on updating external links, word choice, and some further information on job choices. Overall I think the article was informative and explained what Human Services does and how you can become certified and involved in that field of work. It gave plenty of external links to go to that would go along with this article. I do think if Canada was mentioned in the article it should have received the same amount of detail as the United States portion did, but all in all the article was done well.