User:Kjashby/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.


 * Computer engineering: Computer engineering
 * This article is relevant to the class that I am taking, and to my major.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, it summarizes the topic well.

Lead evaluation

 * The lead of this article seems well done. It provides some basic information and a good summary of the article

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation

 * The content of this article seems pretty on point. It talks about different disciplines in CE and gives a history of the field.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, in the Computer hardware engineering sub-topic, there are a few claims that need citations.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

 * The tone of the article seems good, with the exception of the small bias noted above.

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
 * Are the sources current? Mostly. Source one is from 2004, and no longer works.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

 * Overall the sources are good. There are a few specific sources to North Carolina, and a few that are out of date and no longer work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation

 * The article seems to be organized well.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation

 * This article could use more images.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Nothing since 2017. Discussing need for improvement on the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Many projects related to computers and engineering.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? n/a

Talk page evaluation

 * Talk page is not very active.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


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

Overall evaluation

 * This is a decent article, but could use improvement in a few areas.

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: