User:Ceussai/Evaluate an Article

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

Drexel University College of Computing and Informatics

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 wanted to evaluate an article that was relevant to this class, but not extremely long.

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: I do not think the first sentence is very strong. It pretty much just says the old name on the school and that it is a part of Drexel, which is pretty self-explanatory considering the same of the article. I think this section should have included a little bit about what the school actually is for and less about the history and naming every single location it operates. I think those things could be explored in greater detail later on in the article.

Content: Overall the content is relevant to the topic. I think the history section seemed bare compared to the other sections. It is at least as up to date as 2019, but it is possible there are updated rankings and locations as of 2021. I do not think the timeline of iSchool was really necessary to the history; I think more description would be better. This article does not deal with any equity gaps, or at least does not address them at all.

Tone and Balance: This article is not super detailed, so it is very neutrally written. There is not over or under represented viewpoint, and it does not have any sort of persuasive tone. I do not see any sort of bias in the article.

Sources and References: There are a surprising amount of references for how little content the article contains. The most up to date reference is from 2019 and the rest are relatively old, so it is possible this article needs updating. Many of the references are from the same source and one of them is the organizations website. There probably are better sources available. All of the links I tried did work.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is not the easiest to read with the way the sentences are structured. For example, the first paragraph is messy with all of the things in parentheses. I think the section breakdown makes sense, but it could include additional sections to make the article for in depth.

Images and Media: The image is well captioned, but does not enhance my understanding of the topic. It is visually appealing and follows the copyright regulations.

Talk page discussion: The conversations were about copyright issues with the picture and updating small logistical details in the article. It is part of WikiProjects higher education, Pennsylvania, and Philadelphia. We did not really discuss this topic in much detail in class.

Overall impressions: I would say this article is underdeveloped. It has a good foundation in is organization and content but needs to expand both.