User:Allisonk129/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Digital camera

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article as I am interested in both photography and aspects of digital cameras themselves, I figure reviewing and editing an article about them could help me gain more knowledge of them. My first impression looking over the Digital Camera article was that there was a ton of information, both general overviews and specifics. Many viewers will come across this wiki page as a means of learning about the digital camera and potentially applying what the read to their life or even work. It is important that all information provided is accurate and accompanied by proper sources to ensure reliability and validity.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section of this article is neutral and straight to the point, going over the basic functions of a digital camera. What I notice going further in my observations of this page are the differences in amounts of information provided by section. The "history" section appears to be lengthy and supported by many examples that vary by time period. This section is of great quality and usefulness to viewers. However, there are other sections such as those that provide the specifics of a camera such as "sensor size and angle of view" and "DSC" that do not include any sources. These are only two of many that do not provide a source to back up the writers given information. A positive of the Digital Camera article are the amount of images it portrays, this makes it easy for readers to follow along and get a visual experience of what the writer discusses. The overall organization appears very strong, yet the quality of writing can be improved and expanded in certain sections as some are rather short and vague. I believe adding proper sources where necessary could greatly help with the writing quality and perhaps give way to using professional terms. The talk page of this article mainly consists of users stating where they made edits and users asking questions about certain aspects of the article. Additionally, there is one user that points out that a specific source is out of date (2015), as digital cameras are a form of technology, it is imperative that sources be modern as all types of technology are ever-changing. Overall, this article is quite thoroughly developed, but with definite needs of improvement in given areas.