User:Embalming Agent/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because it is related to my career field of social work. This is my go-to approach with working with at-risk youth and I have seen its effectiveness in my clients as well as myself.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The article's lead section provides a brief but thorough overview of the article and reads like a proper introduction to a Wikipedia article. The content is a bit lacking- I would suggest including the standards of strengths-based practices as well as the different types of approaches within them. The "Outcomes" section is unfinished and implies that outcomes of strength-based practices have not yet been evaluated when that is not the case. The article reads entirely neutral and leaves no room for questioning so. The only source that isn't an academic and peer-review publication/scholarly book is the third source (https://www.scie.org.uk/strengths-based-approaches) and could perhaps be replaced with a better one. Though its presence in the article is minor. The article is organized properly. The writing flows well and is professional. There were two grammatical errors and one spelling error that I edited. The article does not include any images, though as it is an article of a social work practice theory, images would not serve to provide a clearer understanding that the text would lack. The talk page consists of a single conversation between one user asking about the proper nomenclature of the article topic with no further replies from others. The article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work. The article's overall status is a stub. Overall, I would say this is a decent article that could be built upon and updated. It provides the reader with a baseline understanding of the concept but it could include more information such as standards and go into detail on what kinds of approaches the theory claims, as well as an updated "Outcomes" section providing current evaluations of the theory.