User:CellFay/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: Aerial photography
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because it is a relevant modern topic that involves technology and its scientific applications. It also has rich historical background.

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's introductory sentence concisely and clearly describes the essence of aerial photography. The Lead contains detailed statements on a few following topics and lack references to history, the largest section of the body. The statement on platforms is a detailed list on a specific section, but that section doesn't mention the majority of the listed platforms. While concise, the Lead is composed of statements that don't get expounded in the article body. They are more so brief clarifying statements on the gist of aerial photography for an average reader while the rest of the article takes a more technical perspective.

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 is relevant to the topic and paints a good picture of how aerial photography was used in history, current methods, and regulations. There is no information on how current uses were developed and only three examples of applications. The platforms that have descriptions seem to be randomly chosen. Overall, there are very broad statements and scattered specific statements that provide sudden bits of information. This article could use a lot of details on technology and modern uses that are likely highly diverse and interesting, showcasing the potential of this technology.

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 maintains a neutral tone and doesn't present any platform or usage as better than others. The historical section is told without opinions. However, there is no mention of less formal use rising in popularity today.

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 several pieces of information that lack citations, at least three parts. Looking through the sources, they appear quite thorough and accurately reflect the information that cites them. The facts that require more current sources are backed by source from the past few years. It is likely that no ground-breaking revolution in aerial photography occurred within the past year or few months, so the sources are likely up-to-date.

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 article is quite well-written. There are no grammar or spelling issues that I noticed. The organization of the topic is fair, but could be improved. While the Lead gives only statements on technical details of aerial photography, the longest section by far is history and it is the very first section of the body. The jargon-heavy sections can be expanded further to make them more informative and accessible. Otherwise, the sections of interest should be the more technical ones and the history section should be moved towards the end.

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
The article's images are well-chosen and clearly reflect information discussed in the article. The captions of almost all the images are sufficient yet succinct, but a few others could use extra context. All the images adhere to copyright regulations. However, since the volume of images is high, they appear a bit packed. If the jargon-y sections are better explained, the images should naturally separate out.

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
Early conversations were about copyright issues and appropriate external links. When it was a stub, someone mentioned merging it with the Orthophotomap article. Later, someone suggested adding a list of well-known aerial photographers. Someone also suggested a layout for the article including topics that were missing. One was current industry and competition with satellite sources. There is also a fairly lengthy and detailed post from a user about usage of several platforms and the significance, currently missing from the article. Another user responded with concern with how big an impact aerial photography had relative to another topic.

The article is included within aviation, maps, military history, and photography WikiProjects. It evaluated to be a start and a B-class article for most of the WikiProjects except for one, in which it was C-class. The importance is rated as mid.

The Wikipedia discussion seems a lot more thorough and detailed. There is less discussion about very general structure than in class and greater focus on the content and how the article should present information and analyses.

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 is not a bad start, as evaluated. There is detailed information in the history section, which is the most well-developed section. However, the technical aspects, modern uses, relation to other topics, and commercial statuses are not discussed thoroughly enough. The article lacks a good structure to build off of and add details. The details there are sparse and appear out of place due to the overall lack of detail. The article thus lacks cohesiveness.

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: