User:Jloukidis/Evaluate an Article

Lead Section: Clearly explains topic, references how it relates to a broader concept, and gives a few real-world examples of the topic. It could have a few more details, but overall is fine.

Content: The content overall is relative to the topic, but is out of date. It could have a lot more to it. It is rated as Stub, which is simply not great.

Tone an Balance: They mostly focus on the bad sections, and have a brief section of the positives. It isn't directly persuasive, but the author definitely leads towards internet challenges being bad.

Sources and References: The article's claims are backed up by reliable sources (like The Washington Post, The Observers), but a little out of date. The beginning of the last paragraph could use a source, as it sounds pretty objective.

Organization and Writing Quality: Clear, but not very professional. It has some emotion-triggering language. In terms of simplicity it is easy to read.

Images and Media: N/A, as this article does not feature any external images or media.

Talk Page Discussion: It is rated as Stub-Class. As far as I can see, there aren't any ongoing discussions.

Overall Impressions: Overall, the article is just basic. It doesn't go into much detail, not many examples, but it successful gets the basic point across.

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

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.)

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.)