User:Pocahri/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Technology adoption life cycle

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 because it seemed related to the development of computer-supported cooperative work and how its new technology and innovation has generally been accepted throughout society.

Evaluate the article
1. LeadThe lead introduction sentence describes the definition of a technology adoption life cycle explaining it as "a model that describes the adoption or acceptance of a new product or innovation." The sentence clearly describes the topic of the article.

The lead does indeed describe sections of the article or key points which are the stages of the life cycle such as innovators, early adopters, etc.

The lead describes the "phobics" or "laggards" of the life cycle which is not mentioned in the article besides the lead.

The lead is concise and detailed just enough to portray a summary and a detailed answer for the reader.

2. Content Evaluation

The article's contents are relevant to the topic as it focuses on the model conveying different adaptations of it and examples of how it is used.

The page is up-to-date with its last update being in October 24, 2021.

I do not believe that the article is missing much information or has not-belonging information as it states the full definition of the concept, provides applications, and history of the concept.

The article does not mention anything about historically underrepresented populations or topics.

3. Tone and balance evaluation

Yes, I believe the article is neutral as it objectively states the technical definition and history of the concept.

There are no heavily biased claims.

The concept of laggards/phobics are underrepresented.

No, the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position. The article sounds very unbiased and educational where the tone sounds like someone is teaching facts to others.

4. Sources and references evaluation

Not all facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source.

The sources are thorough.

Some of the sources are not current as there are some that date back to the 1900s.

Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors with historically marginalized individuals.

The links do work.

5. Organization evaluation

The article is concise, clear, organized well, and easy to read.

The title could be capitalized, but otherwise there are no grammatical errors.

The article is broken down into sections and reflects the major points.

6. Images and media evaluation

There are images to enhance understanding.

Yes, the images have decent captions.

Yes, the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

The image is put away from the text in an orderly way.

7. Talk page evaluation

The original draft was written with just the main topics and needed more detail and information.

The article is rated as Start-class and listed as a level 5 vital article. It is part of multiple WikiProjects such as Antropology, Business, Engineering, Invention, Advertising, etc.

We have not discussed on the technology life cycle.

8. Overall evaluation

The article is sufficient in explaining the topic concept. I would rate it a 7/10.

Some strengths are that the article is concise, structured, and provides good examples of the concept.

The article could be improved by describing more about the different stages of the life cycle rather than just defining them.

The article is sufficient but overall underdeveloped and has room for more detail and improvement.