User:Rutgers Davidf/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
LinkedIn

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article to evaluate because it is was selected by my professor for an in-class activity.

Evaluate the article
The lead section for this article is relatively clear, but could definitely provide a better introductory sentence to give a better sense of what LinkedIn is. The other aspects of the lead lightly outlines the main sections of the article without much issue. From my quick review, I did see that the lead section talks about selling access to information about its members, but I was unable to find anything else regarding this in the article. I would say that the lead section provides details on aspects of LinkedIn that should be covered in subsections. Including revenue and timelines of user metrics is something that I would argue is not immediately important when viewing the page for this specific article.

The content in this article is relative to the topic at hand, with exceptions to some sections. From what I reviewed, I would say that the information in this article is up-to-date. There is content that could arguably be removed from this article. This article does not deal with equity gaps or underrepresented populations or topics.

From what I have reviewed, this article is neutral in nature. There are no claims that I viewed that heavily sided with one particular position. I believe that the section regarding the history of LinkedIn is overrepresented. From what I reviewed, there were not many minority or fringe viewpoints. This article does not try to persuade the reader to side with a certain viewpoint.

The facts that are posted in this article are backed up by reliably sourced information. From the sources that I have reviewed, they clearly provide literature or reliably sourced information to back up claims. After reviewing the sources linked in this article, almost all of them are current, dating back the latest ~10 years ago. The sources provided in this article are through a diverse spectrum of authors. It is difficult to say if there are sources that could be better, but I would not deny this claim. Almost all of the links in this article work, with the exception of two.

The article is fairly well written with concise points. From what I have reviewed, this article has little to no grammatical or spelling errors. The organization of this article could definitely be edited to provide a better flow of information. It does reflect major points on the topic, although the delivery of sections makes it hard to follow freely.

This article provides an image to explain the processes behind LinkedIn. The captions below this image further provides readers with the necessary information to fully understand the process behind connections on LinkedIn. All of the images included follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Most of the images are presented to the reader in a visually appealing way through assisting the delivery of sections.

Conversations in the article's talk page discuss changes and revisions being made to the article. This article is rated as a level-5 vital article in Society and is part of several WikiProjects.

The overall status of this article is fairly complete and well-written. The strengths of this article include the depth of sources and information included on the topic. The layout of the sections included could arguably be swapped around for clarity and flow. In terms of overall completeness, I would say that this article is fairly developed with slight room for editing.