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?

   Program design tools

   ' "if-then" (causal)' - instead of explaining causal in brackets, wikilink 'if-then' to something appropriate, like Conditional (computer programming) or Causality

   "are to: 1) recognize" - don't number things like this in standard prose.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   The Sternin source needs to state the publisher and/or journal.

   The McCawley source looks like it could use more parameters, either the journal or an accessdate.

   Only one of your book sources states the page number(s) that backs up the statements.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   You don't need sources in the lead, as long as the information is backed up in the body.

   Un-sourced statements:

   "Formally, community-based program development has been professionalized by such disciplines as urban studies and planning and social work."

   "Other advantages of community-based program design are collaborative participation, enriching diversity, serving clients in their community, and addressing and meeting the needs of the community."

   "Limited resources result in high levels of staff turnover and reliance upon unpaid volunteers."

   "This model typically demonstrates five levels of influence, although this may vary depending on the application. The five levels usually include:"

   "The underlying purpose of constructing a logic model is to assess the "if-then" (causal) relationships between the elements of a program. Community-based program designers can employ logic models to ensure that program inputs (available community resources) will support the activities of the community-based program, and that the outputs (resulting from the activities) will lead to the program's desired outcomes."

   C. No original research:

   As above

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   This isn't a topic I'm at all familiar with. I might ask for a second opinion on this issue.

   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:

   I see limited relevance for a group of [apparent] strangers ice-skating with this article. Can you explain the relevance? Furthermore do you think there might be a more appropriate picture on commons somewhere?

   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:

There are a few issues here. I'm placing this on hold to see if they can be addressed. Even if they all are I may ask for a second opinion as I've never reviewed a 'Social sciences and society' article before and I'm not really sure if all the major aspects have been covered. Freikorp (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Freikorp: I've fixed some of the issues you mentioned, but I'm a bit busy today, so I will start fixing the rest tomorrow. Philroc^{My contribs} 17:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)