User:RyanF91699/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(LinkedIn)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(I chose this topic due to my interest in LinkedIn and how often I now use it in my professional career.)

Evaluate the article
The LinkedIn Wikipedia page starts of relatively strong supplying the reader with a good introductory sentence explaining what is to come in the initial article. Providing the reader with a clear introduction that describes the article's topic while also keeping it concise, so you as the reader aren't overloaded with information in just the first few statements. Though, I feel that the article itself seems to lack a few small sections in preparation to their major sections like at least mentioning founder's names, or giving a small introduction on how LinkedIn has evolved. Yet, the introduction is still concise and provides all the necessary information needed. To transition now to the content of the article itself I feel that it provides all the information needed to understand the LinkedIn business, though I feel the section of 2011 to present could have been broken up a bit more due to how it seems to be just a dumb of information. Sectioning it off for every five years I feel would have been far more beneficial compared to what's present, as it allows more of a sectioned off section for years allowing a easier format to follow. Furthermore, from what I can see and research all the content in the article is up to date, but we are missing a small gap of history from June 2021 until now, yet there could just be a lack of new history that has happened with LinkedIn involved. Finally, for the content in the article we see the article stay neutral throughout the information presented while also continuing to follow Wikipedia's equity gaps. Moving forward to tone and balance we do not see any viewpoint over or under represented in the article, nor do we see any minority or fringe viewpoints described in any fashion that could cause any misinformation. The sources also used by the editors from my understanding are up to date, and current as well leading to no issues with the information in the article. Though, some of the sources could be changed to something that holds more of a scholarly foundation. To bring my evaluation to a close the article itself is presented in a great overall status, the information is up to date, current to the topic, backed by scholarly sources, and is easy to follow. Fixing some of the formatting would bring a lot of benefit to the article itself, but its not something of a dire need. Also, the images used are current to the article and provide a good visual take.