User:JoshuaSpitler216/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: Lenovo
 * I am currently on a Lenovo laptop and I have used the companies products for a long time. Very reliable, and it is a technology based article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, I would say so. It says where the company is based, and what they do and sell.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? For the most part, but it is missing a few pieces here and there. Specifically business ventures and controversies.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It has a little too much detail in some parts, but in other parts it needs to be expanded upon.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, it is all about the company and their ventures.
 * Is the content up-to-date? No, it is missing ventures and partnerships from 2017 onward. Needs to be updated severely.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It is missing severe details in their business partnerships section.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, it takes a neutral stance on the company and just provides the facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, it is a very neutral article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the article is backed by 191 different sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they provide enough information, even though this information isn't being put to very good use in the actual article.
 * Are the sources current? Most sources date back to 2017 and previous years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Of the five links I checked, only three of them worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Some parts are easy to read, while other parts need to be expanded upon. The article however is very easy to understand.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could tell.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, although further organization could do the article some good.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I'd say the article could use a few more images to make it easier to understand and easier for the reader to see what is being talked about.
 * Are images well-captioned? No. Missing critical information and proper punctuation.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not very much so.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Not much talk is going on here. This is not a very heavily edited article, and needs a "face lift".
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated c-class.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? They see this from a pure business standpoint, but I think this article can be used to see how a technological company is run in different cultures, countries, and societies.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Not very good, Lacking critical info and recent ventures.
 * What are the article's strengths? Very strong information on its impact in certain countries.
 * How can the article be improved? Needs more information on partnerships and controversies.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is underdeveloped.