User:RatFuryJunior/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Computer-supported cooperative work

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article is the article assigned to the class to be evaluated for a Chapman University School of Engineering course, Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. This class took place over Jan 2022

Evaluate the article
1. Lead

· Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

I don't think it really does, there is a one sentence definition but then it dives into extensive history, There is also a section written about covid 19 and other things that don't belong in the lead for the article imo.

· Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Contents are there but no descriptions of layout of the contents or addression in the lead

· Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

The Lead mentions covid-19 aswell economics heavily in the lead. Both of these things are not addressed in the article

· Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is very lengthy and is filled with things that should not be in the lead.

2. Lead evaluation

· Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Not Completly

· Is the content up-to-date?

In terms of citations and relevancy of the sources its not extremly out of date, is it up to standard? not necessarily. ther is a October 2021 flag for a overly long lead section

'''· Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?'''

There are no topics mentioned in lead regarding this, there are examples of this later in the article however.

3. Content evaluation

· Is the article neutral?

I would say that the article is relatively neutral

· Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No claims seem to be heavily biased toward a particular position.

· Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No bias or pushing towards any position. There is a little bit of a sense that the article is trying to persuade you to believe this is important specifically in the lead almost like a essay.

4. Tone and balance evaluation

'''· Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.'''

There are a few citations missing but for the most part most facts are backed up with a citation

· Are the sources current?

There are a decent amount of older sources as well as newer sources up to about 2019. This could be improved but its not horrible

'''· Check a few links. Do they work?'''

Yes, the ones I tried worked.

5. Sources and references evaluation

· Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

This writing is very odd to read in my opinion. key parts of CSCW are briefly described where as other portions that are more spin off based are given more light in the sun such as gaming and CSCW.

· Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I think a reorganization of things here could help. possibly a history section with subcategories under it. There are also sections here that feel not needed such as the gaming section as well as challenges in research

6. Organization evaluation

· Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

The image of the matrix is good for the start of the article, I wish there were more

· Are images well-captioned?

Not really, it could probably be described more.

· Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Not sure of this...

· Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes the one that is there makes sense where it is i wish there were a few more though.

Overall evaluation (and what will you address in your edits?)

I Think reorganization here is key. There is a lot of information in places where it should be more concise, there are sections that seem not necessarily important. Above all the lead section needs to be revised and shortened and elements removed. I think it would be a wise decision to add a few pictures or more depth visually.