User:NotMars/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]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]Someone claimed that this company was the maker of the drones seen in New Jersey and I thought it was pretty funny.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The article has a lead introductory sentence and it is indeed concise. The lead does include a a sort of summary of the sections, but it isn't a large enough article for me to really make that determination. It does not contain any extra details and is not too detailed.
The content appears up to date and the content is relevant to the topic. I do not know lots about this company, but it doesn't appear to have any missing sections. It does not deal with any equity subject really. It states only objectively how and where this company came to be.
The article is neutrally written and there are not true claims made which point to a political or biased positioning. There are no fringe or minority viewpoints that are being under or overrepresented. The article does not appear persuasive in nature.
I do notice that the opening statement under the History section gives the date and name of the man who founded the company. I believe a source could greatly benefit this information as far as credibility is concerned. The links appear to work and as a new company, the sources are all up to date. There aren't that many sources but they appear to be from different sources/authors.
The organization is nice. The article isn't long, again, but for the available information it is not unorganized. I found no spelling or grammatical issues.
The page does mention the specific drone, the Transwing, which is suspected by some conspiracy theorists to be one of the drones seen over New Jersey. However, no picture is shown.
The talk page is actually completely empty as far as I can tell.
It's a work in progress. on 14 December, 2024, a user wrote a bulk majority of the article. I think for what it is, it's coming along nicely. Though, it could use some more work like pictures and sources. The article is perhaps 65% complete if we say that pictures are 15 percent and we need 20 percent more information relating to the company through sources.