User:Damiontripp2501/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Network science

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It seemed interesting to me and it seems like it could possibly relate to my class.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of this article gives a very detailed explanation of what the article contains. It provides a good indication of everything that goes into the field of Network Science. However, the different sections that were mentioned in the lead section don't seem to all have a spot in the article itself. The lead has a good amount of information, it just happen to have a little too much information that doesn't get a further explanation in the actual article. The article seems to spend some time discussing the quantitative aspects of Network Science, but still seem to fall short that when it comes to explaining some of those things that were mentioned in the lead section. The tone of the article is very informative. There doesn't seem to be any bias towards any of the information in this article. Most of the sources used in this article are ranging from 2003 and onward. There are a few that predate the 2000s, but they aren't as prominent as the more recent sources. The article is pretty organized there isn't any necessary additions to it. The images used in this article fit perfectly and correlate to the content of the article. The discussion section of this article mostly has different suggestions such as merging two different articles or removing certain links that may not be very helpful to the article. It has been rated C class and rated for high importance. I'd say this article isn't fully complete. As I was looking through the discussions I saw that someone said some of the links in the lead are misleading so I would suggest finding more reliable links or simply removing them since they are not needed there. I feel like one of the article's strengths is the constant informative tone that it has. I don't think the article is well-developed, but it is close to it. I just feel like some minor details need ton be fixed and maybe more information needs to be added in place of the misleading information.