User:Punsalang/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Employee motivation
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: We chose this article because it is related to HR and we are interested on how employers develop and reward their employees.
- Group members : Krims Gomowad, Gabriel Punsalan and Hiruki Waththe Vidanelage
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
The lead clearly describes Employee motivation and it even adds the description of what motivation is. The major sections are not described before showing the information but all the information needed are present and shown properly. The lead is also straight to the point.
- 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?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
- From motivation to a workplace environment, everything is connected. Though the content is updated in 2017, the relevant theories are not changing, the only problem is how our workplace environment is always adapting to new situations thus the article needs to be updated in that section. Since the article needs to be updated, the new information is missing in terms of “workplace environments”
- 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?
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- The article is written in a neutral tone, neither favoring one theory over another, and it presents information mostly derived from sources with no added input from the author/s to suggest a bias towards a particular position. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented as all theories and theorists that are presented have roughly the same amount of information provided and there are links to wikipedia pages for words that might need more description or explanation for the reader. Overall, the article does not attempt to persuade the reader into favoring one position or away from another.
- Is the article neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- The article is backed up by reliable secondary sources such as library databases, subject related books and peer reviewed journals. And the majority of the resources are thorough; some of the subject related books are Top rated seller from the United States. The article has used current sources, the majority of sources are between 2010-2017. All the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors, the article has used past articles and incidents in different perspectives. And almost all links on the article and the reference links are perfectly working.
- 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- The article is well written and it is concise, clear and easy to read and understand. This article has really good word choice and has really good content. The article does not have any major grammatical or spelling errors. This article is well organized and when paragraph breakdown to reflect major points, it also done well. This article has numerous sub titles to describe and to support the main idea. Overall, this article is well organized.
- 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?
Organization evaluation
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
The article does not include any image that enhances understanding of the topic. As a result, the article looks boring and dull.
- 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?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]Checking the talk page
[edit]- Guiding questions
- The conversations are about which possible sources are being considered and are to be used for the article. The article is rated C-class among members of WikiProject Articles for creation, WikiProject Business, and WikiProject Organized Labour. We have yet to talk about this topic in class therefore there is no comparison to be made.
- 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?
Talk page evaluation
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
- The article can be improved in various ways, updating the information is the most important one but also adding media to the article might help to not make it boring and dull. The article is complete and the information given is more than enough for the topic. As long as the editors keep updating the information about workplace motivation then it would be a developed article. This article is between a well-developed and underdeveloped article
- 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?
Overall evaluation
[edit]Optional activity
[edit]- Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback
with four tildes — ~~~~
- Link to feedback: