User:Cheetah2308/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit](Provide a link to the article here.)
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article by narrowing down the categories. First, I clicked history of computing, and then looking at specific companies, I chose Google. I primarily chose this because I assumed there would be a sizable amount of information on this topic and it was something of interest to me.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Starting with the lead section, I thought the article did a good job. It concisely summarizes the whole page, and also includes interesting details that may be useful or intriguing. It also has a great introductory sentence, paragraph, and other details. The only thing I noticed was the lack of sections listed, but this may be due to the large size of the article. In terms of content, the article is relevant and up to date. It is organized be decade, which is useful and concise in this case. It doesn't particularly focus on any equity gaps but that makes sense given the topic is a bit unrelated. The article certainly presents a neutral point of view, and lists objective facts and historical statements. Regarding sources and references, the ones I tested seem to be concise and working. The sources are also mostly from news article or decently credible web pages. A few peer-reviewed sources and research papers were also included which was certainly a bonus. This was mostly in the context of the technological aspect of the article. Again, I noticed the article is concise and well-organized. I did not see any typos or incorrect formatting. The images included are relevant and have well-written captions. On the Talk Page, I saw this article was rated C-class. Some users did mention some major errors but those seem to have been mostly corrected. We haven't talked about this topic in class, but Wikipedia offers a diverse amount of information on it. Overall, the strengths were the organization, conciseness, and up-to-date details. The weaknesses seem to be a weak introduction section and also inclusion of some unnecessary details. Overall, the article is mostly well-developed, with expansive content, but some room for improvement.