User:JSchrum1/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Amazon Redshift
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

It doesn't explain what makes it useful very well and leaves out a lot of important features such as how it can interact with Amazon's other services to make it more useful.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, but it is somewhat vague.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, after the lead there is no "rest of the article"
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Because the entire article is more or less the lead, it has become overly detailed and cluttered.

Lead evaluation
The first sentence says what Redshift is but is still somewhat vague and isn't easy to understand or detailed. The lead contains too much information and isn't organized well. It also doesn't do a good job of explaining what makes Redshift different from other storage solutions. Overall, the organization could definitely be improved as well.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The last sentence where it says their partners may or may not be relevant. I don't know if this matters because they use Redshift but this should be specified if so. The content that is present seems up-to-date, but it is likely that new features could be added. For example, Redshift's integration with other AWS services could be explained. It also doesn't really detail what Redshift is good for or why it is different from other storage solutions.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is very neutral, especially when talking about how the name is a reference to "shifting" away from Oracle. This could easily be a place where bias is introduced but there is no noticeable bias.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
While the sources may be correct, some of them seem a little untrustworthy or possibly biased. At least one is a blog and several others are from odd websites covered in ads. They are, however, still up to date and the links seem to work. They are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors but I think that is okay for what they are being used for in the cases where they are used. Better sources would definitely help improve the article but the current sources are acceptable for now.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
There are no spelling or grammar errors, but the overall organization of this article leaves a lot to want. There are no sections, and the article is just broken into 3 short paragraphs. The paragraphs don’t lead into each other and the only way to find something in particular is just to read the whole article. It is also not particularly well-written and it is somewhat hard to understand what it is saying at times if you aren't already familiar with the service.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images in the article. Images aren't really needed but graphs or figures would be useful to put its uses into perspective compared to other database solutions.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There has only been 1 post on the talk page from 2017 which asks to talk about the scalability of Redshift and how it compares to SQL based databases. The article has no rating on wikipedia.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article needs a lot of work. First, it needs organization. Once the sections are laid out they need filled in since there isn't much information yet. The most important things are probably what it is useful for and how it can be used with other services as well as the scalability as mentioned in the talk page. Overall I would rate it very poorly developed.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: