User:Lady Halfwolf/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Fedora Commons

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because this was what my acronym assignment was about. I remember googling "Flexible and Extensible Digital Object and Repository Architecture" and being surprised that a Wikipedia article wasn't the first search result. It is important for Fedora to have a good Wikipedia page because it is easily confused with the Fedora Operating System by Red Hat Inc. There needs to be an emphasis that this Fedora is generally used for information organizations.

My first impression was that this article was an okay start, but definitely needs to be edited and updated. The warning banner at the top immediately sends up a red flag that this article needs more work.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * The lead section is succinct and straightforward, giving the reader a nice overview of Fedora.

Content


 * While the content appears relevant, I think there are some issues with clarity. This is especially the case in the Technology section. This section contains a lot of technical jargon that isn't explained very well and is difficult for the reader to comprehend. I think linking to other Wikipedia articles for some of the necessary words would be helpful in this case. For example, a lot of people might not know what metadata or API means. There are articles for both these terms and it would be easy to link to them.
 * The content is also slightly outdated, as there is not any mention of LYRASIS's acquisition of Fedora and how that has affected this software.

Tone and Balance


 * The author(s) did a great job in using a neutral tone and providing a balanced viewpoint.

Sources and References


 * The warning banner at the top states that there are too many primary sources in this article, which I definitely agree with. A majority of the sources are from the original creators of Fedora or the people who helped develop the software. These primary sources can add unintentional bias to the article. More secondary sources (e.g. journal articles, scholarly communications, etc.) should be included in order to have an accurate view of this topic.
 * Also, I do not think there were enough sources used during Technology section, which makes it difficult to know if the content is valid.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * The writing quality is okay, though I think it would be helpful to have someone read it over to fix grammatical mistakes and to rework sentence structure. I noticed that there were a couple of phrases that sounded awkward, such as saying "..supported by the DuraSpace not-for-profit organization." instead of "...supported by the DuraSpace nonprofit organization." Another phrase is "Out-of-the-box Fedora includes the necessary software...", which might sound better as "The basic version of Fedora includes the necessary software..."
 * I also think it might be beneficial to have more subsections than just History and Technology. The History section could have subsections for the history of the development, the name dispute with the Red Hat Inc. Fedora, and also the acquisition of Fedora by LYRASIS. Technology is another broad heading, especially for this type of software. There could be more sections or subsections that break this heading up, such as the model Fedora is based on, the different versions that have been released over the years, and how it is currently being used around the world today.

Images and Media


 * The only image included is the Fedora logo. I think an image or two of the Fedora framework would be helpful to peoples' understanding of the software.

Talk Page Discussion


 * The talk page discusses the case of overexplaining the University of Virginia's role in creating Fedora, renaming the Wikipedia article to "Fedora Commons," and the name dispute between the Fedora repository and the Fedora operating system. From what I read, all of these were updated in the article.
 * I think it might be beneficial to revisit the conversation of the name of the Wikipedia article as "Fedora Commons," which is somewhat outdated. It might be more useful to discuss naming it "Fedora (open-source repository)" or even just "Fedora (repository)." It is not really referred to as "Fedora Commons" anymore, but it still needs to be differentiated from "Fedora (operating system)."
 * The talk page notes this article as being of interest to the following WikiProjects: Libraries, Computing, and Digital Preservation. I think these are all a great fit, especially the WikiProject Digital Preservation.

Overall Impressions


 * I think this is a good start to this topic, but it definitely needs to be updated with recent information and have more secondary sources added. Expanding on the present information and breaking it down into subheadings can flesh out this article. It would also help to edit some of the grammar and sentence structure to help improve readability.
 * This article does have a solid lead section and helps the reader distinguish it from other uses of the word Fedora, especially the operating system.