User:Nicole Willard-Moore/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Societal impact of nanotechnology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article to evaluate because of its correlation between technology and society. It matters because it provides an overview of the societal impact of nanotechnology, a present concern worth evaluating as it continues to change and grow within society. My preliminary impression of this article was that it succeeded in discussing crucial concepts, though I am cautious of the initial warning stating that some of the material may be speculative.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The introductory sentence is fairly concise in describing the article's topic. The major sections are not described specifically, rather broadened as "social and political" impacts. All information is present, and notes that environmental and health impacts are not included within the article as to hone in on the main topics. Overall, the lead is concise yet could be stronger in terms of description. The content of this article is relevant to the topic. It appears to not fully be up-to-date as most of the content revolves around the timeframe of 2000-2010, though it says it was last edited December 13th of 2020. Because this article is part of a series of articles regarding the topic, the content included belongs to this specific article's points. Underrepresented populations are somewhat addressed, as the article discusses the impact on developing countries as a main point. The tone of this article is relatively neutral, but reads slightly on the negative side at times; some claims appear implicative that nanotechnology is a development that should make society skeptical or cautious, though this article does not feel as though it is attempting to persuade the reader into this mindset. Rather, this may be an instance where personal opinion may have casually mixed in unintentionally. The links within the article work and the sources included appear to be reliable and thorough. As previously stated, the sources are not necessarily current but are not too concerningly dated either. The article is written well and concise in its spelling as I did not spot grammatical errors. The sections are broken down accordingly an appear to be well organized. This article does not include images that enhance understanding of the topic. There are no conversations taking place in the Talk section of this article, however discussion appears to be taking place in a different Talk section as of 2015. This article is part of WikiProject Technology and has been rated as C-Class. The status of this article is fair. There are organizational and topical strengths considering it is part of an article series following different focuses. Improvements include strengthening the lead of the article and adjusting the overall tone as to remain fully neutral, though my own readings of the tone may be assumptive. Overall, the article is developed well and completely, and could benefit from certain adjustments and updating.