User:KHillWells/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: Freshwater marsh
 * The article's topic was closely related to the courses subject matter.

Lead
The lead is filled with a good quantity of information but does not overview the other sections.

Content
The article is somewhat up to date with the most recent sources being in the 2010's with the older ones stemming from the 90's. The content of the other sections are relevant to the topic as a whole. The community and technology section could be a little more concise. The use of terminology in that section might be difficult for readers unfamiliar with sociological terms like social forms and might need simplification.

Tone and Balance
The article is mostly is written in a mostly neutral tone, however there seems to be a very slight bias towards viewing technology and its association with communication and social use in a more negative light.

Sources and References
The lead section has many inline citations that can be attributed to academic papers referenced at the bottom of the article. The other sections however, completely lack in-line citations or any source material for that manner ( a point made by other editors at the top of the page).

Organization
The organization makes sense as it guides readers through different fields that sociotechnology as a study can apply to. There also was not any real jarring errors in mechanics and spelling.

Images and Media
N/A the article does not use any form of images or visual media.

Checking the talk page
The talk page is practically blank and only mentions that the article itself was part of a course assignment with a student editor. It is part of many start-class wikiprojects but there is no actual discussion on the talk page.

Overall impressions
The article needs some improvement. Only the lead has any sources attributed which is a critical issue considering the following section make use of many claims, quotes, and a robot anecdote without sourcing any references for the information. It is good as a bold attempt to start the discussion on a new article/field. It is poorly developed without citations on a majority of work and will need major editing.

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: