User:SeaGL/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Software Design and Development: Software Design and Development
 * I chose this article because it falls close to my field of study.

Lead evaluation
The lead is extremely short and only contains two sentences. It gives a one sentence definition for Software Design and then throws together the two major sections into the other sentence. All the information in the lead though is present in the article, and it is concise, but it's too short and leaves a lot to be desired.

Content evaluation
There are two sections to the content: Victoria and New South Wales. Victoria contains the content for the VCE course, but the content is a bit irrelevant and does not contain a source. The only content that falls under it is one sentence stating that the course is known by a different name, and no reference is listed. The New South Wales section containing the HSC course is more more in depth. In gives a description of the course followed by its preliminary course and course structure. Overall, there's a lot of content missing. The Victoria/VCE course content needs a lot more attention. There also needs to be a section going in depth about the course itself.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral. It aims at giving descriptions of its courses and does not aim to be biased towards one viewpoint. It aims to make people more interested in the course, but it fails to do so do the lackluster content.

Sources and references evaluation
It seems as if none of the content of the article is backed by references. Only one reference is given and is referencing the HSC Course description, but the link takes you to a site that at least appears to have nothing to do with the content at hand. It links to a general site rather than a specific page, and the site itself hasn't been updated since December 17, 2018. It seems the HSC Course content was taken from a syllabus. You can dig through and find descriptions of the HSC Course, but it's hard to find where the information in the content regarding the preliminary course and course structure was gathered from.

Organization evaluation
The article is concise, clear, and easy to read, but it's not so because of being well-written but just by lacking content itself. It does not appear to have any grammatical or spelling errors, and it is well-organized, but again, lacks information.

Images and media evaluation
The article contains no images or media.

Talk page evaluation
There are no conversations going in the Talk page. It's been rated as stub-class and low-importance and is within the scope of WikiProject Austrailia.

Overall evaluation
The article's status is that it's very basic, hence it being rated as stub-class. It's only usable information is regards to its HSC Course description, but even that is falls a part due to a lack of sources and an outdated source. The article can be improved with a broader definition and description. The Lead could use a better description, and a more in depth description of the course should be contained under the content. The Victoria section also needs a lot more focus, and it just needs references, just references in general.