This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: (Control Banding)
- Control Banding and Health Hazard Banding are important approaches to protecting the workforce. The approach can be useful for small to medium sized companies without substantial financial resources.
- Guiding questions
- Yes, but the lead sentence should be simplified. It is currently "Control banding is a qualitative or semi-quantitative risk assessment and management approach to promoting occupational health and safety." I suggest changing it to "Control banding is a technique used to guide the assessment of workplace risks and the management of workplace exposures to protect workers."
- No, because there is not much information provided in the article. I recommend including a History of Control Banding, Examples of Control Banding Toolkits, and Limitations of Control Banding.
- Yes, because there isn't much of a "lead" paragraph.
- Poorly written.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. It is relevant.
- Is the content up-to-date? No. Needs to be updated.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, there is missing content.
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- 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:
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: (Control Banding)
- Control Banding and Health Hazard Banding are important approaches to protecting the workforce. The approach can be useful for small to medium sized companies without substantial financial resources.
- Guiding questions
- Yes, but the lead sentence should be simplified. It is currently "Control banding is a qualitative or semi-quantitative risk assessment and management approach to promoting occupational health and safety." I suggest changing it to "Control banding is a technique used to guide the assessment of workplace risks and the management of workplace exposures to protect workers."
- No, because there is not much information provided in the article. I recommend including a History of Control Banding, Examples of Control Banding Toolkits, and Limitations of Control Banding.
- Yes, because there isn't much of a "lead" paragraph.
- Poorly written.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. It is relevant.
- Is the content up-to-date? No. Needs to be updated.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, there is missing content.
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- 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: