User:Gracia Y. Barrera Ruiz/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Campus of the University of California, Berkeley

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the campus of the University of California, Berkeley because it is ranked as a start-class article that has a half completion rate (leaves room for improvement) and has an average of mid-importance in two wikiprojects. The article itself matters because it expresses the historical description of the construction of this campus which should be general knowledge that is accessible to all students here at UC Berkeley. My impression of the article at first was that it contained alot of detailed information, which made me wonder why it was classified as start-class when it looked completed to me, with citations and references all throughout its content.

Evaluate the article
Lead section: In evaluating the lead section, I have found the first paragraph introducing the topic of this article too detailed and too misleading as to the explanations of the actual content of this article. It chiefly describes the architects involved in the process of constructing the campus, yet the content is based on the actual individual buildings. There was too much information relayed on this first paragraph that it can confuse readers on what the entiretly of the article may be all about.

Content: The content is relevant to the topic, but there seems to be more information on some buildings than others. There also seems to be links instead of paragraphs for whole sections of buildings in this article.

Tone and Balance: I do believe this article is neutral and does not seem to miss any of the viewpoints that are detailed in the content of this topic. I do not think this article is persuasive to any such side in this topic, it explains the construction and origins of the buildings factually and accurately.

Sources and References: The main issue I found with this article is that there is basically only one person creating, editing and publishing this entire article with minimum interactions with other wikipedia editors. There should be more authors and far more interactions on this article to assure its validity. There also seems to be a lack of references and citations to the direct quotes that are stated in this article at the beginning.

Organization and Writing Quality: There are links present in this article to pages that no longer exist so, there needs to be new links and new references within the structure of this article. The article is divided into sections detailing specific buildings in parts of campus. This article is easy to read and gramatically simple for the most part.

Images and Media: This article does not contain enough images for the type of content it is talking about (nor are the images positioned in a way for it to be visually appealing). The selection of images itself does not add to the understanding or to the context of the whole university structure or contruction (needs better pictures).

Talk Page Discussion: Another problem I found in this page's talk page discussion was the lack of a conversation taking place, there is hardly any engagement or edits made by other authors or editors in wikipedia.

My overall impression lies in that it is a very extensive article that does contain alot of useful information yet misses sources, collaboration and visual editing. The information is solid but it needs some reorganization and clarity for the audience to understand the topic fully. I think the article is developed but it is missing information, making it equal information on all sections.