User:LodFod/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Secondary market offering

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
We chose this article because we found it to exemplify the typical (informationally) underfunded article, obviously written by an expert contributor, yet without containing enough information to reliably cite as peer-reviewed or a collaborative measure.

Evaluate the article
This article is very short and concise but at the same time is straightforward and accurate. Hence, it doesn't have enough content to justify any major sectional breakdowns. The article coherently explains the process of how a secondary market offering works and how this type of offering differs to other market offerings such as a follow-on-offering. Although the information is accurate and coherent, it is relatively vague and open ended. Readers who are not familiar with market offerings and the business ecosystem might find this article confusing. Although the authors did provide links to other key terms and important information, they could improve this article by diving deeper into the roots of a secondary market offering, the steps this process requires and the implications for all parties involved.

Furthermore, the article's tone is neutral, making it good and reliable for a Wikipedia article. The authors are neither proposing nor leaning towards any point of view and there is no bias within the information provided. The article is very straightforward, and although in some times it might suggest a certain party does not benefit (eg: “ The proceeds from the sale of the securities do not benefit the issuing company in any way”) This statement is not biased within context, as the authors are just providing accurate information and answering a common question many individuals might have.

Moving on towards media, the article contains no pictures, though for such a topic there may not be relevant pictures to include, anyway. In regards to references, the article does provide a good amount of links to other relevant articles, which provides the reader with different perspectives and a clear understanding about technical terminology. Nevertheless, the authors lack a full list of references and I will argue that their article should have more direct citation which will make it more reliable and trustworthy. Maybe even using examples of real life scenarios and cases where secondary market offerings have occurred, might be a good idea to show some proof and accurate citations.

The talk page of the article is very interesting as in this section the authors are actually bringing up some well known sources, such as Investopedia, and using real life cases, such as one with Google, to prove certain points of view and provide more accuracy and detail to this topic. The main dispute, surrounding a distinction between follow-on vs. secondary offerings, and the merger of the related page, seems to have been resolved by adding a clause distinguishing the two types of offering. It's clear that there are knowledgeable people writing the article, however it must be said that adding more information would improve it significantly.