User:Gzzy1234/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Atlantic Telegraph Company

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 chose this article because before now I never really thought about the infrastructure of how the underwater internet cables worked and how they got there. I came across this article and thought it was a great opportunity to expand my understanding and the understanding of others. My first impression that this article was pretty small with only one main section and needed a lot more information.

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

The article has a good lead section that has a concise overview of the topic. It does not contain any information that is not in the article, but it could probably be rewritten to be more clear. It could also use some more basic information and to better introduce the topic of each major section.

Content

All of the content in this article seems to be relevant and up to date. The history section has a lot of good information, but every other section is lacking, and could probably use some more sections. I do not think this article could be considered to be part of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

This article seems to me to be neutral and does not favor any specific viewpoints. It does not come off as persuasive.

Sources and References

A lot of the facts given in the article do not have sources beside them to back them up. The sources are thorough on the topic. The topic itself is older, so I'm not sure how up to date the references need to be, but just by doing a little digging on google scholar, I was able to find a lot of sources that would be perfect for this article that were not already used. One of the links in the further reading section did not work.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article does not have any grammatical errors that I saw while looking over it, and all of the information that the article did have was well organized. I do not think that the writing is clear and concise though. There are sone sentences and phrases that are worded in a weird way, or aren't necessary all together.

Images and Media

There are only two images in this article. One is in the information box at the top of the article, and the other is in the article itself. The article at the top of the article is well captioned and makes sense for the article. The second picture's caption does make sense for the article but there are grammar and punctuation errors in the caption.

Talk Page Discussion

It looks like there is not much going on in the Talk Page of this article. This article is part of three WikiProjects: Companies, London, and Telecommunications and is rated Start-Class, Low-Importance. The authors of this article mostly stayed true to the way we discussed how these articles should be written in class. They list the facts in a non persuasive way.

Overall Impressions

I think that this article has a long way to go. Its biggest strength is the history section, but that is about it. I think this article could be improved by expanding upon the underdeveloped sections and making the current writing more concise. I would call this an underdeveloped article. It has a good foundation but has a long way to go.