Talk:Community-based program design/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 03:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Be advised rather than bringing up any minor issues I will just fix them myself. If you're unhappy with any changes I make simply revert them and we can instead discuss the issue here. Also feel free to reply to my concerns as they come in; don't feel like you have to wait for the entire review to be finished. Freikorp (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   Lead

   "Community-based program design is a social program design" - two uses of 'program design' within seven words reads poorly.

   "This program design approach depends on the participatory approach" - same issue with two uses of the word 'approach' within six words.

   "One advantage is a learning experience between a consumer and a social services provider.[2] One disadvantage is a limited availability of resources" - merge this into one sentence.

   "The models that can be used for it are ..." I can honestly say this is the longest single sentence I've ever seen on Wikipedia. You need to break it up.

   "the change around us" - is 'us' the right word here? Would it be better as the change around 'the community', or just 'the change'?

   History

   "by quoting Harper (1990) regarding" - this isn't a university essay. We don't quote sources on Wikipedia like this. I suggest rewording it to something like 'by quoting a 1990 [whatever the medium was, i.e journal] by [author's full name]

   Try and avoid one-sentence paragraphs if you can. Can you expand the final paragraph somehow?

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Regarding the model image - what is this images source? Is it based on information specifically found in source No. 2 (being the only source in the 'Socio-ecological model' sub-section)? I'm not an expert on image licensing, but if it isn't based on a specific source, I think this image would constitute as original research. Also you could probably make a better version of it in a program like Microsoft Paint. The text doesn't appear to be centered all the way down and there are different spaced gaps between the text and the circles. This isn't a fail point in itself, but I definitely think you can make a better image.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: