User:Alpinetamale/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Computer-supported cooperative work

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This particular field is newer than most other topics within the scope of computer science, and it's not discussed in enough spaces. I'm passionate about HCI (Human Computer Interaction), and because it is relatively similar to Computer-supported cooperative work, it's something in which I'm interested. Accessibility in technology is important to making it more widespread, but there are more complex situations involving how groups of individuals operate that aren't properly addressed. Further study of this topic can hopefully provide better solutions to various methods of technology-rooted groupwork.

Evaluate the article
The lead section's introductory sentence summarizes the topic in a clear and concise manner.

The lead section is too detailed and excessively long, and it lacks proper, brief descriptions of the article's major sections. It needs to be more concise. All of what is mentioned in this section is present in the rest of the article. The indented sentence in the introduction should be taken out and rewritten as an original sentence that originally conveys the content from the cited source. The sentences on the Audio-Visual Conference Module should be condensed into one sentence and less important information should be relocated to its appropriate section.

The information in this article is relevant to its topic, but some of the content should be updated. In regards to the CSCW matrix, there should be reference to more modern renditions of the matrix, like MoCA (Model of Coordinated Action).

A topic related to historically underrepresented populations/topics is addressed in this article: female participation. However, it does not discuss racial/economic disparities, and the role disability plays in Computer-supported cooperative work is not mentioned. Again, this relates to the need to update the article's content.

The facts in the article are mostly backed up by secondary sources. The first paragraph in the "Central concerns and concepts" section should have a source cited. There are current sources, but the majority of them date back more than five years. More current sources, particularly from 2019 onwards, should be found. The sources reflect the topic's available literature. There is a diverse selection of authors amongst the sources cited in this article.

This article is written with a neutral tone and balanced representation of viewpoints. There are no attempts to persuade the reader in favor of a particular position, and no claims are distinctly biased. However, viewpoints from groups such as disabled people are underrepresented. The sources that I checked do not have broken links.

The article is written clearly, but it isn't as concise as it could be. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. The sections are broken down well.

There is only one image used throughout the whole article, so there should be more images employed to enhance understanding of the topic. The one image is accurately captioned and maintains a visually appealing layout. The image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

There are constructive conversations happening in the talk page, discussing ways to improve references and re-write sections of the article to make it more representative of the field. The article is a part of some WikiProjects, and is rated as start-class on the project's quality scale. Wikipedia discusses this topic relatively similar to how it's been discussed in the classroom, but it leaves out ethical and social issues that add to Computer-supported cooperative work's universal importance.

Overall, this article understands the core concept of the topic, but needs work in expanding it beyond its origins and basic applications in technology. Its strengths involve functional source links, a neutral tone, relevant content, and a productive talk page. Some weaknesses include a lack of diverse viewpoints, an oversized introduction, not enough recent sources, insufficient images, and a general need to improve article concision. The article has strong foundations, but more relevant information and discussion should branch off from what is already established.