User:Johannah Stevenson/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Name of article: C++
 * I have chosen this article mainly because it has to do with my major, computer science. C++ is the first programming language I learned and it related to the themes of this class through its cumulative process and its reflection on the broader ideas of technology: organization, cooperation, and innovation.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes; it's a basic summarization of C++ is and who created it.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Kind of, but it could be better. The lead could better introduce the subjects in the content by explaining more features in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, none of the headings talk about what C++ could be useful for. It seems that this information is only found in the second paragraph of the lead and isn't really expanded on.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think its concise, but I do think there is one sentence that is misplaced and interrupts the flow of a paragraph
 * The article, C++, section of the text is includes:
 * "The current C++17 standard supersedes these with new features and an enlarged standard library. Before the initial standardization in 1998, C++ was developed by Danish computer scientist Bjarne Stroustrup at Bell Labs since 1979 as an extension of the C language; he wanted an efficient and flexible language similar to C that also provided high-level features for program organization. Since 2012, C++ is on a three-year release schedule, with C++20 the next planned standard (and then C++23)."
 * This sentence doesn't relate to what was previously said and I feel like the last sentence should have directly followed after the sentence mentioning the standard library. I feel like the highlighted sentence would be more appropriate in the heading of history or located in the first paragraph where the developer was first mentioned.

Lead evaluation
The lead is divided into three sections: introduction to what C++ and its major features, the uses for C++, C++ standardization (as it continued to be updated throughout the years). It summarizes the major features of C++ in a concise diction. However, some of the features could be described in more detail since the major features mentioned are generic. In addition, some information in the lead are repeated and some subjects in the article should be introduced in the lead. The overall impression is that the lead is good but could use some improvement.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, everything is about C++.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes (or at least to my knowledge).
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, but I feel like such a broad subject as C++, it is to be expected. There is heading, "Dynamic polymorphism",  that has no information under it.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes but I believe each subject is addressed in fair amounts. Some subjects just contain less information compared to others.  The equity gaps is due to information not being included yet.

Content evaluation
There is information lacking (there are many features of C++ that aren't mentioned) and some subjects could be expanded on, but it seems that the information is up to date and is relevant to the topic. I believe this to be one of the article's greatest weakness.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes; it's easy to stay neutral regarding a topic that doesn't generate a lot of controversy.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there is even a whole section dedicated to the criticism of C++.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes, but I don't feel like that is related to bias, but a lack of information on the topic
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it simply state facts about C++.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article isn't biased and seems to be simply stating facts related to the topic.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


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

Sources and references evaluation
Every fact has a citation linked to it. The article has a wide array of sources and authors. It seems that this article was thoroughly researched. However, some of the sources lack authors and come from questionable sources like blogs, not academic journals (which is also understandable. I doubt there are a lot of academic journals regarding C++.). This is definitely one of the article's greatest strength.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. Some of the terminology is hard since C++ uses a lot of vocabulary the public is unfamiliar with, but those terms are often highlighted, linked to another wiki articles that explains it more in depth.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I noticed.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. Each major point is addressed and expanded on with smaller subheading referencing both the specific subject and C++ as a whole.

Organization evaluation
There is a flow of the contents that lead into each subject and heading naturally with the diction being concise and easy to understand with linked terms. I believe the article's way of conveying information is one of its greatest strength.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, in the traditional sentence; but there are graphs and images of code that are helpful.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The graphs and images of codes are not captioned at all and many of the captions that fit the other images are just as lackluster as the images themselves.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I guess. None of the images distracted me.

Images and media evaluation
The images and captions are barely related (with the exception of images of code) that barely add onto the information in the article. This section of the article doesn't really need improving since C++ isn't a physical thing and not a lot of images would 'depict' it.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There doesn't seem be many conversations and those that are being taken place seem to deal with copyright, images, and unnecessary or incorrect information.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated C-Class and yes it is part of the WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't talked about this topic in class. But I guessed it's more concise and mainly relies on facts, caring less if the readers understand the topic. The wiki article is more focused on relying facts than ensuring that the reader understands the topic.  There's also less of a flow in the article than in class.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page is limited to 3 conversations and it seems that little was discussed about this article between others but the conversations is related to the articles and is a part of the WikiProjects. So it can be improved.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * A low B.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The strength's are the sources gathered on the topic and the concise and detailed information given so far.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More information needs to be gathered into the features of C++.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It needs a lot more development considering the vast amount of information on C++ that is out there.

Overall evaluation
Good articles often consist of leads that gives an understandable and concise definition of the topic and an introduction of the topic's most important features, which this article does to an extent. The lead could introduce the features of the topic better by being more specific, then the generic features the article given. Another important aspects of articles is a clear structure, which this article has as exemplified by the table of contents that have a lot of subheadings and subheadings that flow naturally together. In addition, the balanced coverage is lacking since a lot of information has yet to be added. To include, the article is not biased and have a lot of varied sources. Overall, the article is good but it still needs to be developed and have a lot more information regarding the features related to the topic.

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:

No, I won't do that. I don't feel like my evaluation has enough thought put into it for it to be valid.