User:Calliso2022/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Digital humanities

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is the topic of the class. My initial impression is that it seems like a complete and well written article.

Evaluate the article
For continuity's sake, I will answer the questions in the order they are presented.

Lead section: - Yes, the first sentence accurately summarizes the scope of digital humanities.

- Except the history section (which I believe need not be mentioned), yes, all of the sections are mentioned in the introduction.

- No, there isn't any information in the lead section that isn't covered in the article.

- The lead is concise. Content: - Yes, the content is relevant.

- The content is up to date.

- I think all of the necessary content is represented in the article.

- The criticism section of the article discusses issues of diversity and accessibility for those with disabilities. Tone and balance: - Yes, the article maintains neutrality by positing only facts.

- There are no claims that seem heavily biased.

- I feel as if the criticism viewpoint is over-represented in comparison to beneficial aspects of digital humanities.

- I believe they are not, all viewpoints in the criticism section are discussed as if they are majority viewpoints.

- That being said, I do not believe the article is attempting to persuade the reader. Sources and references: - Yes, the article is grounded in sources.

- Yes, the sources are thorough.

- Yes, there is only one source from before 2000.

- The article includes a wide range of sources and an even wider range of authors. The authorship seems culturally diverse.

- A better source may exist for citation 11, instead of the National Catholic Register (which could have some bias towards a Catholic Priest, and does not cite any sources), there exists an article from IBM that is used in the Wikipedia page discussing the individual.

- The links I have tried have all worked. Organization and writing quality: - The article is clearly and concisely written.

- I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors.

- The article is well-organized. Images and media: - Yes, the images included show an example of Voyant Tools and 3 examples of network analysis. I feel as if the article could include images of project examples in the place of 2 of the examples of network analysis. Also, the image in the definition section is unclear as to what it is trying to describe. Perhaps a different diagram showing the reasoning and methods could be more useful.

- The image in definition could use a better caption as well, it does not help the clarity of the diagram.

- I'm not sure about the licensing of the image in the definition section. It comes from the book Digital Humanities: Knowledge and Critique in a Digital Age, but I cannot find licensing information on the book.

- The locations of the first and second images of network analysis don't make sense. Network analysis is not mentioned until further in the article. Talk page: - Most conversations are a few years old and have been resolved, but there are recent conversations saying that the criticism section seems excessive, and another comment discussing a part of the introduction being too specific.

- The article is rated B-Class and is part of the Science, Philosophy, History, Literature, Higher education, and Computing WikiProjects.

- One user posted a link to a list of projects without using it for any suggestions to improve the article. Overall impressions: - The article could use minor improvement.

- The articles strengths are its completeness and citations.

- The article could be improved by analyzing the criticism section and making adjustments to images.

- The article is very well developed.