Talk:Community-based program design

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caveman1989. Peer reviewers: TheOrientAlice.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Community-based program design/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, should have this to you within a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• The lead is too long and disproportionate for an article this size. At the moment it is one huge paragraph which makes it hard to the reader to read. I would strongly recommend splitting it into at least three paragraphs in order for it to comply per WP:LEAD and meeting the GA criteria
• Per WP:LEAD, it is discouraged from using numbered examples in the lead. Furthermore, if anything is not mentioned anywhere else in the article then it should not be in the lead!
• Per MOS layouts the picture should be at the very top of the article

• The caption isn't strong enough to illustrate anything. "Community"? But isn't it people ice skating?

• There are a few sentences in the History section that are unsourced. Also, the prose is slightly choppy as there are a lot of short paragraphs
• "(for more, see: deinstitutionalization)" - should be removed as it should be replaced with a citation
• "Formally, community-based program development has been professionalized by such disciplines as urban studies and planning and social work" - unsourced. Can it either be expanded or merged into another paragraph?
• "Melvin Delgado, in 1999, illustrated this point by quoting Harper (1990)" - who is Delgado? What profession is he in? If he's not notable enough then the red link should probably be removed
• Typically the bullet points in the Advantages section should be converted into prose, as per most GAs
• "Low availability of limited resources is also associated with low levels of participant retention" - unsourced
• "The five levels usually include" - why usually? Are there different variations?
• Logic model paragraph largely unsourced

References

• No dead links

Close - not listed

I'm really sorry to do this seeing as you had to wait a while for this to be reviewed, but at the moment the article does not meet the GA criteria. The prose is somewhat choppy and the lead is larger than any other section of the article; it's disproportionate and also contains information that the body doesn't provide. I go by a rule that the lead should summarise the article and should act as a "mini article". I really hate failing GANs, but there are some serious organisational issues to tend to before this can meet the GA criteria. If you have any questions please do ask, otherwise good luck! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 13:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Community-based program design/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.

   "Formally, community-based program development has been professionalized by such disciplines as urban studies and planning and social work." - As well as being un-sourced, this sentence no longer appears in the body. Anything that is not mentioned in the body should not be in the lead.

   "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.

   @Freikorp: I've found page numbers for most of the sources, but the three sources I couldn't find page numbers for were behind paywalls which didn't allow me to preview the pages I needed. Philroc^{My contribs} 13:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks for letting me know. It's not a huge problem, and at least some of them have been found. I'd still be happy to pass this GAN if 3 page numbers were the only outstanding issue. Freikorp (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

   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)

@Philroc: I'm happy with the edits made thus far, and you've certainly come a long way since the first GA nomination. Unfortunately it has been over a week and not all of the issues have been addressed. I'll give it another day or two to fix the issues but if its not done soon I'm afraid I'll have to fail this. Freikorp (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Philroc: As mentioned above I can live with you not being able to find 3 page numbers. You don't have much else left to do. If you can't find sources for the un-sourced statements you could consider just deleting them. Though keep in mind that even if you address all the issues I'll probably ask for a second opinion due to obscure subject of this article, and that if you delete all of the un-sourced material a second opinion may find that the article is lacking in content. If I don't hear back from you by tomorrow I'll just close the nomination. Freikorp (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Hi there. I was asked to do this review as a trade of sorts and I'm struggling a little as I've never reviewed a cultural GAN before. As you were the reviewer at the first GA nomination, I thought you'd be a good person to ask for a second opinion. If you're too busy though just let me know and I'll consider either just giving it the benefit of the doubt or going through the formal second opinion process. Can you have a brief look at the article and let me know if you see any major issues? In particular I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to determine whether the article is 'broad' in its coverage and covering 'all major aspects' of the topic. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this article should be expanded a little, if possible. In my opinion it is just shy of the "broadness" aspect of the GA criteria. Could any more information from the existing sources be squeezed out so it can make the subsections feel less stubby? This is just from a brief read through. I'm afraid I don't have the time to do a proper review of this but it would be great if the "Program design tools" section could be expanded. JAGUAR  21:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I only needed a brief review so that's perfect. I was thinking the same thing - it is just a bit lacking in content for GA. Philroc, do you think you can expand this as per Jaguar's comments before the end of the weekend? Or do you want some more time to work on it (in which case I'll close the nomination and you can renominate it once you've had the time to expand it)? Freikorp (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Freikorp: I'll see how my schedule works out. Philroc^{My contribs} 01:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I'm going away for the weekend so won't be able to reply to comments here. I have to draw the line somewhere; if an appropriate, sourced expansion hasn't been made by Monday morning (UTC+10:00) I'll close the nomination. Also don't forget the really long sentence in the lead still needs to be broken up/reworded. Freikorp (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Closing as no further edits have been made to the article. You have done some great work improving the article since the last GA nomination. I'm sure if you apply the same level of improvements again this article will pass a third nomination. Freikorp (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)