User:RoboElephant/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Digital media

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to use this article because digital media is a topic I already know somethings about. Also, because the article doesn't feel like it's overflowing with information that would make it hard to find new things to add.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The lead section does introduce the topic, but it gives a lot of different definitions about what digital media means. It’s a little confusing because the first section gives a lot of definitions and the second section also titled Digital Media gives more definitions. It could be reworded some to make it a little less confusing, but it does introduce the topic.

Content: The content that is there, it is pretty good and seems pretty up to date. However, there isn’t all that much content on the page to begin with. There are only two sections with real detail. It definitely needs a lot more.

Tone and Balance: This article seems pretty neutral, very definition and statistics heavy.

Sources and References: This article seems to have good references and sources. There are a lot of hyperlinks and sources throughout. There is also a “See also” section where there is more information or related topics for more clarity on certain topics. The sources are relatively recent. Most of them are forums around 2010ish so there definitely needs to be some more recent information used to update the article, but the ones that are there seem good.

Organization and Writing Quality: I feel the organization of what little there is, is good. It is split up nicely and in an order that makes sense. The writing quality is pretty good. Some of it seems a little wordy and could be made more clear and concise.

Images and Media: There are very few pictures, but the ones that are there are captioned well. From what I can tell they do adhere to the copyright regulations.

Talk Page Discussion: There is nothing on the talk page aside from someone asking for more work to be done on the article. There is literally nothing else.

Overall Impressions: What is there is good, but could be made a little clearer. I don’t really see any strengths because there is very little there, but the history section seems pretty solid and the article seem pretty reliable even thought there needs to be more recent ones added. This article can be improved with more information and pictures. This article is severely underdeveloped.