User:Cennaroll/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an Article
3D computer graphics

3D computer graphics - Wikipedia

Lead Section
Yes, the lead sections provide an overview of the article topic.

No, the lead section does not give a brief review of the main points of the article.

No, the lead section does not include information that is not present in the article.

The lead section is overly detailed, to the point it seems like the author is repeating themselves.

Content
Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic

Yes, the article content is up to date and has been edited recently

I think the 'Material and Textures' doesn't necessarily need its own heading and can be briefly mentioned as it doesn't give us much information about 3-D graphics.

No, this article does not address topics relating or related to historically underrepresented groups.

Tone and Balance
Yes, this article is neutral and doesn't argue against 3-D graphics or try to persuade readers why 3-D is better than 2-D.

No there aren't any heavy biased content

I think the 'History' section is underrepresented, because there has to be more than just the couple of sentences listed especially from the time difference of 1961-2023.

Sources and References
Yes, all information is backed up by reliable sources

Yes, the sources are through

The article ranges from different years the earliest is 2003 and the latest is 2023 so I'll say no just because majority is from the early 2000s and the 2010s.

Yes, the sources are from a variety of authors, and different articles.

Yes there more relevant and up to date resources for this article that can be used.

All the links worked except for one the "An Historical Timeline of Computer Graphics and Animation". Archived from the original on 2008-03-10. Retrieved 2009-07-22."

Organization and Writing Quality
I found it hard to pay attention to some of the points in the article, because the wording seemed to be clustered and just not very clear, so I would say not it's not well written.

The article from what I can tell did not have any spelling or grammar errors.

The article is broken into sections however i feel like they can be rearranged for a better effect.

Images and Media
The article does include images that did enhance the understanding of 3D rendering.

Yes, each image has a caption/ description underneath it.

No, I think the darker image should've been last or first, so it creates a gradience.

Talk Page Discussion
A lot of the talk discussions are asking for more relevant information and offering suggestions to make the article better.

The article is in a Wiki project and from what i can see its rated mid-importance to high-importance.

The difference from taking in class and the talk page is that in class we talk mostly about the subject and not the articles, we go over information, and such. But in the talk pages they offer suggestions, revisions, and questions about the topic.

Overall Impressions
Overall impressions I really like history of technology and the growth and evolution of it throughout the year, so it was a very interesting topic and i did learn more about 3-D graphics that I didn't know before.

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

3D computer graphics

3D computer graphics - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I've chosen this article because i really like graphic design and I saw the overview of it and saw a History section which drew me in more.

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
Yes, the lead sections provide an overview of the article topic.

No, the lead section does not give a brief review of the main points of the article.

No, the lead section does not include information that is not present in the article.

The lead section is overly detailed, to the point it seems like the author is repeating themselves.

Content
Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic

Yes, the article content is up to date and has been edited recently

I think the 'Material and Textures' doesn't necessarily need its own heading and can be briefly mentioned as it doesn't give us much information about 3-D graphics.

No, this article does not address topics relating or related to historically underrepresented groups.

Tone and Balance
Yes, this article is neutral and doesn't argue against 3-D graphics or try to persuade readers why 3-D is better than 2-D.

No there aren't any heavy biased content

I think the 'History' section is underrepresented, because there has to be more than just the couple of sentences listed especially from the time difference of 1961-2023.

Sources and References
Yes, all information is backed up by reliable sources

Yes, the sources are through

The article ranges from different years the earliest is 2003 and the latest is 2023 so I'll say no just because majority is from the early 2000s and the 2010s.

Yes, the sources are from a variety of authors, and different articles.

Yes there more relevant and up to date resources for this article that can be used.

All the links worked except for one the "An Historical Timeline of Computer Graphics and Animation". Archived from the original on 2008-03-10. Retrieved 2009-07-22."

Organization and Writing Quality
I found it hard to pay attention to some of the points in the article, because the wording seemed to be clustered and just not very clear, so I would say not it's not well written.

The article from what I can tell did not have any spelling or grammar errors.

The article is broken into sections however i feel like they can be rearranged for a better effect.

Images and Media
The article does include images that did enhance the understanding of 3D rendering.

Yes, each image has a caption/ description underneath it.

No, I think the darker image should've been last or first, so it creates a gradience.

Talk Page Discussion
A lot of the talk discussions are asking for more relevant information and offering suggestions to make the article better.

The article is in a Wiki project and from what i can see its rated mid-importance to high-importance.

The difference from taking in class and the talk page is that in class we talk mostly about the subject and not the articles, we go over information, and such. But in the talk pages they offer suggestions, revisions, and questions about the topic.

Overall Impressions
Overall impressions I really like history of technology and the growth and evolution of it throughout the year, so it was a very interesting topic and i did learn more about 3-D graphics that I didn't know before.

Examples of Good Feedback
One example of a good feedback on the talk page was someone showed a detailed reorganizational draft of what the author can do to improve the article even more.