User:Bouis22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
2020 Twitter account hijacking - Wikipedia

Why have you chosen this article to evaluate?
I am a computer science major, so I chose to do an evaluation on an account hijacking that occurred in 2020. It wasn't a bad article at all. It was informative and had decent content. I did think that it could use much better cited and more reliable sources, but other than that, I don't think it is a terrible article.

Evaluate the article
The lead section needs to be bolded at the beginning. It does have a clear first sentence that states the topic. The lead doesn't give a brief description of the major sections. However, it doesn't share random information that is irrelevant to the article which is good. It is a little over detailed, but I believe that it works well in the beginning of the article.

The stated content is definitely up to date and is relevant to the topic. It doesn't have a lot of historical aspects to it; however, it was a more recent incident that was done using technology that has only been around for the past 15 years give or take a few years.

It doesn't seem to be very one sided or biased. I actually think it was written with neutrality and a strong want for the audience to understand where the author is coming from. It is more of an informative article rather than a persuasive one.

The sources are the biggest downside to the article. It is a rather good article, but the sources are very unreliable and are cited somewhat poorly. Most of the article's sources are from magazines and media outlets that in the past have shown political bias. It also seems as if the sources are lopping, meaning that one source is sources another that sources the first one, if that makes sense.

It has good structure, and it looks pleasing when reading it. The media and images that are in the article are very few, actually I believe there is only one. It is relevant and makes sense where it was placed, but there certainly could have been more images used.

Overall, the article was rather good. It has strong structure and lots of possibility. It needs work on the sourcing as well as a little better lead section. The lead section is very important, it should draw the reader in and hold them, making the reader want to scroll and scroll until they have finished the article. I think it is well-developed but could use some adjusting and reorganizing.