User:Emilyyxx/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Collaboration

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am researching on communication skills within teamwork, and collaboration working is one of the methodology within a team to work together with shared information. Also, Wikipedia is one special example for collaboration as well.

Evaluate the article
Evaluation of the article

Lead section
The lead section of the article starts with a definition of collaboration which clearly states what the term means and how the term is being used. The lead gives an insight of the major properties of collaboration, but it does not provide a brief description of the major sections. All the information provided in the lead are related to the information in other sections of the article. The lead is certainly concise enough with no overly detailed information.

Content
The content of the article uses different examples where collaborations are used to illustrate the concepts further. Many of the content are up-to-date, while some of the contents are actually old examples in the past. All contents are related, but the content only includes the examples of collaboration in different areas or certain specific situations.

Tone and Balance
While the contents basically involve in the examples of how collaborations are present in different disciplines and situations, the tone of the article is neutral. However, after looking through the article, I found that most of the content is stating the positive side of collaboration and few disadvantages were discussed.

Sources and References
While many of the contents are backed up by sufficient sources, some of the sections do not provided with reliable sources or provided not enough sources to support the contents. For example, the section " Technical Communication", no sources have been cited. Although some of the contents might be agreed by the majorities, no references in the section can make the contents unreliable. Most of the references ranged from the year 2006 to 2020, so it is relatively current, given many of them are examples in the history. Most of the links are active, while a few of them show up an error page.

Organization and writing quality
The article, in each section, is concise and clear about the the section content. However, the overall structure is not so clear. The Level 1 Heading sections are "examples" and "occupational examples" which is not that clear and organized.

Images and Media
A few images are used to help the readers to understand the topic, but I believe more charts and images can be used to better show the facts about the contents. Images used adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are not really laid out in a visually appealing way since there are little direct relationship of the images to the article topic.

Talk page discussion
In the talk page, editors discuss about the underlying problem of some problems such as "untitled" contents, misleading wording, errors of the sources link, and some biased or unreliable information. Also, there are suggestions made by editors who would like to add on more type of information or who wants to extend the contents. Some different opinions and suggestions are given.

Overall impressions
The first impression to the article is not structured as expected. The content of the article is clear and concise but the some of the content lacks reliable sources. The references need to be rechecked and improved. It is sightly underdeveloped, more sources need to be add to support the information stated. The contents are structured in a way that is hard for the readers to find the information they need.