User:107.0.32.34/sandbox

Article being critiqued: Information Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science -this is a decent size article with a focused, easy-to-understand lead section -headings are arranged by category, with subheadings being appropriately selected within the category effectively ... for example, the history section's subheadings are in chronological order of the important people and events of the information science topic -article goes into pretty good detail, delving into the history of information science, other important foundations, different careers, media dissemination in the 21st century and different research vectors and application ... however, certain sections did not receive the same balanced coverage as others (almost nothing to the careers section other than information scientist and information professional (viable industry has more professions) -each fact referenced with appropriate, reliable sources -all the material in the article is relevant to the topic of Information Science as its pretty focused on the topic and doesn't digress at all -this is a neutral without any biased claims that towards a particular position ... article focuses on the different nuances of information science, not focusing on why it is awesome or terrible -most of the information is coming from Academic Journals, usually peer-reviewed, neutral sources ... At least 90% of the sources are scholarly articles -over represented view point: section dealing with documentation science in Europe -under represented view point: information dissemination in the 21st century section really only delves into the impacts of social media, but does not delve into other uses of information dissemination like on the internet in general, for business, for databases and other uses -every source I checked came from a scholarly article and was appropriately paraphrased -the information is relevant to the topic today, not outdated ... however, another section or more in depth analysis of different jobs and fields within information science in general would strengthen that aspect of the article

Draft: The Wikipedia article titled, "Information Science," has many of the elements of a great Wikipedia article. Starting off from the beginning, the article has a focused, easy-to-understand lead section that clearly describes what information science is. The article strategically distinguished the different between information science from information theory or library science, a good way to establish clarity early on in the article. Overall the article is decently sized, making the organization of the article critical. This was successfully done for "Information Science." Different headings for the article are arranged by category, with subheadings being effectively selected within the category. For example, the section titled, "History," has different subsections that are in chronological order, describing the important people and events of information science. Overall, the article goes into pretty good detail delving into the history of information science, as well as other important foundations, careers, media dissemination in the 21st century and different research vectors and applications. I was impressed by the sources comprising the "Information Science" article. Most of the information comes from academic journals, usually peer-reviewed, neutral sources. At least ninety percent of the sources are scholarly articles, usually well-accepted. Every source that I checked came from a scholarly article and the content extracted from the source was appropriately paraphrased. I did not see any instances of plagiarism. Meanwhile, all the material and sources used in the article relate directly to the topic of information science without digressing. The information is also neutral without biased claims as the article focuses on the different nuances of information science, not on why it is an awesome or terrible field. The article could use some more improvement. The section dealing with documentation science in Europe is too over-represented. Though the origins of information science are important, I do not feel it was necessary to delve into documentation science as much. Meanwhile, the information dissemination in the 21st century section really only discusses the impacts of social media, failing to bring up other uses of information dissemination like for businesses, the internet in general or for databases. More material could be added to this section. And while all the information in the article was relevant to the topic today, I feel another section or some more in depth analysis of different jobs and fields within information science would strengthen that section of the article. There are certainly more than information scientists and information professionals in the field.