User:CaRem117/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the Computer-supported cooperative work Wikipedia page.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The article was assigned to me by my professor to evaluate. In our current class, we are learning about concepts of Computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW), so the Wikipedia page is relevant to our course materials. It is imperative that I evaluate this page in order to present CSCW accurately for future classes and researchers. Upon reading the article, I noticed there is a lot of information about CSCW, but the structure and flow is messy, making it a confusing read.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section


 * The lead sentence does not actually what detail CSCW is. Rather, it tells a history of CSCW, making a weak lead sentence. The history should come after a description of what CSCW is.
 * It does not include a description of the CSCW page's topics. Again, it is more of a history, present, and future summary of CSCW.
 * All information in the lead section is about CSCW, generally.
 * I would not consider the lead section concise, since it rambles more about CSCW's history, present, and future.

Content

Tone & Balance
 * Although the content is relevant to the CSCW topic, I do not think all the content is necessary at all. A lot of the content is repeated or unnecessary tangents of the core idea of CSCW. Depending on the direction the article is headed, it would be best to shorten the length of the entire article.
 * The content seems up-to-date. Majority, if not all, of the References are from the 21st century. Majority of the edits were made recently as well.
 * This is not historically underrepresented, but I do think there are gaps about critical knowledge of CSCW. So far, the page is just a high-level summary of CSCW.


 * The article is quite neutral since it mostly stating facts right now.
 * There is no extreme bias; however critiques of CSCW is slight underrepresented in the article. CSCW is not perfect and the Wikipedia article should represent that.

Citing Sources


 * There are quite a lot of sources for this Wikipedia page.
 * Most of the articles seem like reviewed primary or secondary sources. I could not find any random news links to replace.
 * Links do work.

Organization & Writing Quality


 * The article is written, but lacks concise and clear. Currently, the article views like a whole bunch of people editing without a plan, making the flow seem inconsistent and allows for repetitive information.
 * The article is not well-organized. Major topics are missing and lesser topics are given major topics settings.

Image & Media


 * There is only one image in the entire article.
 * The image is not well-captioned. There should be more description under the picture and not just what it is.

Talk Page


 * The Talk page talked about errors that needed fixing. However, the Talk page is very old with the most recent comment in 2004.
 * The page is rated Start class.
 * In class, we have discussed more social implications of CSCW and not the functionality. I would like to add more social concepts about CSCW.

Overall Impressions


 * It is obvious that this article is still very much a work-in-process.
 * The article has a lot of information and sources, but lacks organization and flow throughout the article.
 * To improve this article, we should work to make the article more clear and concise, add representative images, and restructure the article.