Article evaluation
The article I reviewed in Wikipedia is online counseling [1]
Overview Section
The article has a clear overview section, defines what online counseling is and the common formats. For my previous experience of using wikipedia, the brief overview normally good enough for me to get a sense of the topic I am searching.
Article Structure
The article was break down into five sections: history, benefits, effectiveness, controversy, and reference. This is a very logical and intuitive way to break down topics like online counseling.
Content
Every paragraph inside the section is relevant. However in the benefit section, many citations are missed. Phrases such as " There is some research to suggest" are not validated by citation. This is a sign of bad quality.
Reference
I checked several citation links. Some of them linked to blogs, such as citation 16. Some of them linked to article databases, such as citation 8. They all work and we are able to read the full text just by clicking the link.
- Great review of Online counseling, @Sisiqin:! FULBERT (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)