User:Ez0523/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: (link)
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I've decided to evaluate this article because I am a computer science major and am also heavily interested in all things technology.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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]- The Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It begins with the definition of technology and its Greek root. The major sections such as history and philosophy are mentioned along with brief descriptions of what their sub-sections include. All the information in the Lead is discussed at one point or another in the article. Given the breadth of information tied to technology, I believe the Lead is concise because it covers the general definition and related topics in 4 moderate paragraphs but some may argue that it could be shortened.
Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
The article's content is relevant to the topic.
- 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?
Content evaluation
[edit]- The content is definitely relevant to the topic- it covers the original definition/usage and history of technology all the way to present day information and its philosophy. The content is up to date and also covers where technology is heading in the future. The last edited update was January 23, 2020. I would say there's some missing information. In the future technology section, there's only a few lines but I think much more could be written on that topic given all the recent advancements in technology. It does link a different article, "Emerging technologies", which covers everything in full.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- 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?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]- The article felt neutral all the way through. Specifically, in the main philosophy section, there were two subsections called "Optimism" and "Skepticism and critics" that discussed the ethics of a technological society. The claims that might've been more biased were always in their corresponding section. But, the general information was never biased. I don't think any viewpoint was over/underrepresented, they all had in depth explanations and further links embedded. Thus, there wasn't a noticeable pull towards one position or another, it was more a presentation of facts and viewpoints.
Sources and References
[edit]- 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?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]- All the facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. There are over 87 references in the article- many from recent dates- and after scrolling through them, most appear to be from journals, books, or credible online resources. They are also thorough, every section or introduction of a new topic had numerous links to follow up with it. As mentioned before, the sources are current; there is still a balance between historical entries that were used for the "History" section and those from the 20th century discussing recent developments. I tested out five links and they all worked!
Organization
[edit]- 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?
Organization evaluation
[edit]- The article felt well-written and clear. The information is compact and a lot to digest so maybe not the easiest read, but definitely a good starting point to get an overall understanding of technology. The sections were well-organized which significantly helped with processing the different applications and segments of technology. I didn't catch any grammatical or spelling errors either.
Images and Media
[edit]- 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?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]- Every section had at least one image; however, the philosophy section only had one image for the entire section despite the length of the writing. The history section had many images to show different pieces that were originally considered technology. The captions were brief, simply stated what was pictured but that's all that was necessary and they adhered to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. As for the visual appeal, I think that could have been improved to be more engaging and clean.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- 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?
Talk page evaluation
[edit]- There were only a few conversations going on behind the scenes about how to represent technology and its definition. The article is rated B-Class and it is a part of the Technology, Sociology, Systems, History of Science and History WikiProjects. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic is much more sophisticated than how we talk about it in class. It has a scholarly tone versus an open-discussion.
- 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?
Overall evaluation
[edit]- Overall, the article is in good shape and still relevant. The main strengths would be the organization and source use. It was written in a clean format and breakup, and I could trust the information. The article can be improved by making sure each main and subsection is covered a little bit more. The first few sections were very in depth but then the later parts seemed to fade out into mini paragraphs. It did not seem intentional but rather because there wasn't enough written about the particular subject. Still, I'd say the article is well-developed and I could follow along without confusion.
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: