User:Blerim.Abdullai/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Computer vision
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article I am currently working on a relatively basic implementation for NASA's Lunabotics Competition. This article was also rated as C class so it has room to be improved.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead does for the most part summarize the topic although it could be rewritten in a slightly better way. The lead does include a brief description of the articles major sections however the terminology used in this lead is very advanced and may easily turn away those who do not have a deep technical understanding. The lead does not include any information that is not present in the article and it is fairly concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content of this article is mostly relevant and includes a lot of information on the theory of computer vision and its theoretical applications. There is a lot of technical jargon found throughout the article which is one of its main downfalls. Although the topic itself is very technical in nature there is not attempt to try and introduce and overview the topic to someone that is not very technically sound. The hardware section of the article seems to be particularly lacking as the section is not very long and does not highlight some of the key components to computer vision such as LiDAR sensors. There is also a fair amount of direct repetition in the article that makes it seem kind of sloppy and hard to read at times. The content of the article is also slightly out of date but that is mostly due to the time at which it was written.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is very neutral and informative due to the nature of the topic. In general it is difficult to become biased over a topic such as computer vision as it is very technical and specific. Overall throughout the article there is no form of persuasion or favoritism of a particular side mostly because of the fact that there really is not a particular viewpoint that can be taken over a topic such as this one.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are a couple spots in the article that need citations but overall there are citations for every piece of information. The sources are all very thorough and represent the topic very well as a whole. A lot of the articles are from the IEEE which is a very reputable source and is to be expected from a topic like this. The sources all seem to work when clicked on. All of the sources are within the last couple of years except for some that are mainly used to highlight the history of the topic itself.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The organization of this article is the main downfall as it is not very readable in its current state. The sections of the article do not follow a very logical flow and make the reading experience somewhat confusing. For example the related fields section is the second overall section of the article ahead of the applications and uses section. In my opinion this section should be at the bottom or at least integrated into the applications section in order to give a more logical flow to the article. There are also some poorly worded sentences that can make some of the topics harder to understand than they need to be along with some grammatical errors. The article is too concise at some points and does not fully explain some of the topics that it is trying to outline which again hurts the readability.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
This is another area in which the article is mainly lacking. The article overall has a lack of good diagrams to illustrate some of the concepts that are being talked about. While there are a few pictures featured throughout the article they are often very small and off to the side. The pictures are properly captioned for the most part and do somewhat supplement the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There have no conversations on this article since about 3 years ago. The article is a C-class article and is involved in the WikiProjects, Computer Science, Computer Vision, Robotics, and Technology.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article has some very good sources and quality information overall, but the article is still poorly organized and difficult to read at times. I believe that the information in this article can be reworded and re-organized at some points to make it much more effective. This article is also fairly underdeveloped in some areas and some of the ideas in this article feel relatively incomplete. I also believe that some more effective diagrams and pictures need to be present in order to give the article a more polished feel and allow the reader to follow along more easily. There are definitely some interesting real world applications that I feel are left out of this article that would make it much more interesting to read. I would say that overall the article is underdeveloped.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: