User:Mark.Strassberg62/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: Technological revolution
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

With the advent of numerous new technologies over the last 20 years including mechanical devices like the iPhone and applications such as Uber, we are currently living in the midst of a technological revolution. Thus, it is beneficial to learn about the overview of the history of technology through several revolutions, which this article presents.

Lead

 * Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead for this article is does not present a particularly good introduction for the topic of central focus: technological revolution. While the introductory sentence is concise, the second sentence does a better job of clearly describing the article's topic. Moreover, the lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, rather, it provides only a definition of technological revolution. Due to its brief nature, the lead does not include information that is not present in the article, nor is it overly detailed. However, it is overly concise, leading to a poor lead as a whole.

Content

 * Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
While the technological revolution article includes content relevant to the topic, including history and different sector breakdowns, the potential future technological revolutions section appears to provide opinion based information rather than factual evidence. Although future revolutions are relevant, the articles seem to connect an opinion of the Wikipedia author, and thus, does not belong. Additionally, the article is missing content about periods before 1600AD, citing that there is no consensus about labeling these periods as technological revolutions. However, these periods are merely listed with little to no information provided as to why they may be considered revolutions. On a positive note, the article is up to date, including information up to the Digital Revolution, which extends into 2020.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Unfortunately, the article is not neutral, citing sources that seem to support the author's idea of what a technological revolution "should be." The author states that pre-modern era revolutions are speculative, citing a source to back up this opinionated claim. Despite the fact that they list several eras based on what appears to be a reliable source, they provide no information as to why these periods could be revolutions, persuading the reader to believe that these periods cannot be classified as technological revolutions. Rather, they appear to be heavily biased towards only periods after 1600AD having any merit.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation:
While the links work and the sources are current, the sources as a whole do not reflect the available literature on the topic. Some of the secondary sources of information appear to be opinion-based, which are reflected throughout the article. Despite the fact that numerous articles are cited, they appear to be too general for the topic. A greater number of sources that provide more specific information with regards to each era is required.

Organization

 * Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
As a whole the article is concise and does not have grammatical or spelling errors. Unfortunately, the major flaw of the article is the organization, which makes it difficult to read. Primarily, the "Description" section should have been incorporated into the Lead section, because it provides introductory information about the topic. Moreover, there are several chronological lists throughout the article that are presented in a scattered, illogical way.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions:


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

Images and media evaluation
The five images contained in the article serve to enhance the understanding of the topic and are well-captioned. All of them are related to technological advancements that have helped spark the technological revolutions included in the article. The images do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and properly cite the creator, but they are not laid out in a visually appealing way. Instead, all of the images are located along the right side of the article, and can only loosely be applied to the specific section they are placed next to.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
Overall, this article is rated as start-class, which helps explain the poor organization and source quality. Currently it is part of several WikiProjects, including WikiProject Technology, WikiProject History, and WikiProject Economics. There is a singular conversation about lack of inclusion of the Knowledge Revolution, which furthers the idea regarding the lack of information provided by the article. Taken together, this Wikipedia discusses the topic differently from what is expected in a reputable article due to its lack of information and biased presentation of information.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


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

Overall evaluation
As a start-rated article, its overall status is poor. As a result, it is underdeveloped and still requires numerous high-quality, specific articles to provide relevant and more detailed information. Although there are some strength such as the images that provide a good snapshot of the technological advancements from technological revolutions, the article lacks many other strong points. The incoherent structure and organization is the chief aspect that needs improvement. Nevertheless, with more input of reliable second sources this article that highlights an interesting topic relevant in the modern era in which we live can be improved.

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 — ~

Question: Why was the Renaissance Era not definitively listed as a technological revolution and was instead marked as "speculative"?


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Technological revolution