User:Kobef13/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
End of message

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I think it is very interesting to see how we have evolved in communication of ending messages and message chains.

Evaluate the article
There is not much of an introduction to this page. There is one sentence describing what end of message or EOM means. I would say it is clear and short but too short. The lead does not contain major sections of the articles. The lead does not include information that is not used throughout the page. The lead is concise but is too short.

The content within the article is relevant to the topic. The information is not out of date. I do believe that there is some information missing. I think that an additional section could be added showing how throughout time message endings have changed and how message endings vary between which type of communication the message was sent.

The tone of this article is neutral. There are no claims which heavily bias anyone or anything in particular. There is no under or overrepresentation of a certain thought or idea.

There is a pop-up at the top of this page saying that more sources are needed to verify the information. From the few sources that are used they seem credible and are from a variety of authors. They seem credible but more research would need to be done in order to verify them. The sources are current and the links to them work.

The article is very clear, concise, and easy to read. No grammatical errors or spelling errors are present that I can find. The organization of the article seems sufficient.

There are no images or media on this page.

The talk page is barren. There is only one post on it showing why someone feels that an edit was incorrect and should not be included in this page. The article is not rated nor is it a part of any WikiProjects. We have not talked about this topic in class.

The articles overall status is incomplete. More citations need to be added to sufficiently adhere to Wikipedia's liking. The strength of this article is it is a very short and easy read. There is no excess information that needs to be sifted through in order to find what an individual may be looking for. The article could use further development.