User:Cgb1822/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Gina Neff

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I noticed that the article was classified as having plenty of room for improvement. My preliminary impression of the article was that while it does contain valuable information, parts of it are very vague. I also noticed some minor grammatical errors and inconsistencies in language which I felt could be improved. I also felt that there was room for improvement in the overall tone of the article.

Evaluate the article
Lead section:

The introductory sentence does effectively describe the article's topic. However, the wording is off- the flow between "is Professor of Technology & Society at the Oxford Internet Institute" and "and the Department of Sociology at the University of Oxford." doesn't really make sense. While the wording could change, the content should stay the same.

The article's major sections include Research, Supporters, Teaching, Education, and Books. The introductory sentence describes that fact that she is a professor, so teaching and education are implied, and this introduction leads into these sections effectively. The second sentence of the lead effectively describes Neff's research- it "explores the social and organizational impact of new communication technologies, with a focus on innovation, the digital transformation of industries, and how new technologies impact work." However, the lead makes no mention of the books she has authored, nor does it bring up the possibility of any relevant supporters. There is no information in the lead that is not present in the rest of the article.

The lead does not contain excessive detail- if anything, it lacks a bit of information, particularly any mention of her major published works.

Content:

Overall, the article's content is relevant to the topic. Information on Neff's career, her education, and her publications are relevant to the fact that she is a professor and a researcher.

The Books section, however, contains descriptions of the books Neff has authored that are somewhat too detailed. The descriptions start with a one-sentence overall explanation of what the book is about, but for each there are one or two more sentence that go deeper into these overall descriptions that may be unnecessary, since the first parts of the descriptions already serve to explain what they are about. There are also descriptions of the awards that some of her books have won, which is relevant information.

Tone and Balance:

There is some room for improvement when it comes to the article's tone. While most of the article is written from a neutral point of view, there are certain parts that sound more biased and less based on fact. In the Research section, for example, "This will help build better technologies and strengthen the science on diversity in technology-led growth." seems out of place and is not necessary in the description of Neff's research. The preceding sentence, "The “Al & Data Diversity” project seeks to advance public understanding of data diversity and the everyday decisions around AI and technology innovation.", is an objective and neutral description of Neff's goals, while the sentence after it describes a reason that that research is beneficial, which presents a bias that the research is good and beneficial, which is not the goal of the article.

Sources and References:

The article includes eight references, including profiles, information on her projects, and her books. Many of the sources come from the Oxford Internet Institute's website. Sourcing Neff's books, which are detailed in the article, is necessary, as well as her profile and the descriptions of her work from the Oxford Internet Institute's website. These sources are current. While the references that are included are relevant, there is little variation in the sources where the references come from. Most of the available literature on Neff is bios from various websites, so the reference are decently reflective of this available literature. All of the links work.

Organization and writing quality:

Other than some very mild grammatical errors and inconsistencies in language in the lead (for example, "organizational" is also spelled "organisational" in the same sentence), as well as one biased sentence, the writing is clear and professional. The article is well-organized; the content within each of the sections remains relevant to what that section is supposed to be about. The sections included are relevant to Neff being a professor and a researcher with published work.

Overall, the article's lead could be rewritten to include a description of all of the article's major sections. The small amount of bias is easily corrected as well as grammatical errors. The "Books" section could be more concise, and there could be more variation in the sources. The lead and the books section are the primary weak points in the article, while the rest of the sections are strong. The article seems well-developed given the sources available on the topic.