User:Ava hedges/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Dogpiling (Internet)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I saw that there was a lot of room for improvement, the information was weak and did not provide me with an understanding.

Evaluate the article
The article introduces the topic but does not clearly define it, there are several other vague definitions of the word. There is no brief description or transition into the article’s major sections. A reader who wants to clearly identify the topic could do so through the first sentence, but is not introduced to what else will be covered in the article- no overview. Lead is very vague, not concise or detailed. Introduces cyberbullying in the article but does not include that in the overview.

The content is relevant to the topic, but is not expanded. The history is one sentence long, and does not clarify the origin of the word. Content is missing in the history section, and the basic information.

The article is neutral, and there is no bias. In one section, there is an opinion- but no attempts of persuasion, there is just information though it is vague.

None of the links are dead, they all work however some of the sources could be better. They’re not explained in the body of the article, just linked.

It’s not well written, the lead only defines the word with very vague definitions. It is unclear and not the writing does not sound professional.

There is no image for this page.

Overall the article is lacking in every aspect and is unclear. It could be improved with more information and better wording. The article's strengths are that it’s concise, but so concise that it is too short- not well developed.