User:S0r47737/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Philosophy of technology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I wanted to read more about the philosophy of technology.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The lead section includes an introductory sentence that does not necessarily concisely and clearly describe the article’s topic. In addition, the lead section does not address the article’s major sections. Although the introductory lead section sentence references the fields of philosophy and technology, the article fails to address the two disciplines and tie them to one another. In addition, the lead section of this article is extremely brief and does not address the article’s items of discussion.

Content:

The article's content seems relevant to the topic. The content of the article appears to be up to date. The article fails to address the two disciplines (philosophy and technology) and tie them to-one-another. The article should address these two disciplines. The article does include underrepresented populations such as female scholars in the field of science and technology.

Tone and balance:

The article appears to be written from a neutral point of view. The section titled “Technology and neutrality” could have expanded on other positions. However, the article could do a better job of representing more of the works published by other philosophers. Minority viewpoints are not accurately described as such. A reader could claim that the article tries to persuade the reader in favor of one position away from other viewpoints.

Sources and References:

The article seems to be using good resources meaning it's backed up mainly by reliable secondary source information. Although the sources cited reflected available literature on the topic, the article would have benefited from having additional references. The sources appear to be current. The article could benefit from adding a more diverse spectrum of authors. The links that are added to the article are functional.

Organization and writing quality:

The article is legible, and the information is helpful. However, the article would benefit from having sentences that served as bridge sentences to connect one point with another. The article does not appear to have grammatical or spelling errors. The article would benefit from adding more information and some restructuring of the information presented in order to allow for an easier to read format.

Images and media:

The article does include one image which is laid out in a visually appealing way and is well-captioned. However, one could argue that the picture chosen does not enhance the understanding of the topic.

Talk page discussion:

Other philosophers are recommended to be added to the list (Mario Bunge). The phrase, "Possibly the most important living philosopher of technology is ..." was removed from the article as user argues “Wikipedia should not be making such judgements.” Another writer argues the article is not inclusive of other contributions from other regions. The article would benefit from being more organized.

Talk page discussion:

Other philosophers are recommended to be added to the list (Mario Bunge). The phrase, "Possibly the most important living philosopher of technology is ..." was removed from the article as user argues “Wikipedia should not be making such judgements.” Another writer argues the article is not inclusive of other contributions from other regions. The article would benefit from being more organized.

The article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Overall impressions:

Overall, the article is in its development stage. The article can be improved by citing more of its sources. And discussing the philosophy of technology from a global viewpoint. The article is underdeveloped and needs improvement.