User:Ava.burnhamm/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Apple Inc.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the article on Apple Inc because technology is such a significant part of our everyday lives and it is constantly evolving. I figured a company which such power and relevance like Apple seemed interesting to evaluate, especially since the business is always creating new products and features, information needs to be kept up to date quite frequently. My preliminary impression was that it was an article with relevant and clear information that was not out of date.

Evaluate the article
At first glance I thought this article was well done, however as I looked closer my opinion changed. In the beginning of the text, a introduction to the company Apple is given. The article shares what the business supplies consumers with, naming products including the iPad, iPhone, MacBook etc. More background information is listed such as where the company is based out of and software applications and services that go hand in hand with the devices. I believe for the most part this information was relevant to the topic and was up to date with a statement that said, "as of March 2023, Apple is the worlds largest company by market capitalization." In this section I think there were too many facts listed that were unnecessary. I think this was distracting and kind of took away from the whole point of the article. The next part highlighted the history of the business. This portion was too extensive. It began by discussing how and why Apple was founded which was useful information, however the article went on to explain in depth history which was broken up with dates starting from 1980 to present day. Overall the text was neutral, there was no bias statements that stood out to me. There were countless facts that were backed up with evidence and no opinions of the authors to my knowledge. As far as sources there were many citations throughout the article, with the links working when clicked, although all the citations were other Wikipedia pages. I did not see any outside sources from reliable websites. This made me question the whole page and the accuracy of the information. When I read the talk page, many were saying very similar statements including the fact that there was almost too much detailed information that was not relevant, some was not up to date and there was some inaccurate facts. Additionally, the article could have been organized better and the history section has lots of room for improvement, mainly due to the fact that it was too long and challenging to not get distracted.