User:Simplyethf/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Digital camera

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose the article on digital cameras specifically to learn more about how cameras work. I have a broad understanding about camera mechanics from all the ones that I personally own for my photography work however, I think it would be beneficial to research it more and then apply what I know/learn to the Wikipedia article where possible. I think it matters because other photographers or just people who want to learn more about their own camera can learn a lot from the mechanisms explained in the article. My preliminary impression is that there was a lot more written on the article than I expected for a "S" type article. I wasn't sure if that was normal and it makes it seem a little more jarring than I expected it to be. Also, from the amount of information, I'm realizing that there is a lot more that I don't know yet and that I feel like I will personally learn from what the article already has.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead section:

-The lead section seems well written. It is concise in that it gives a very brief summary of what digital cameras are and quickly on how it functions compares and contrasts to film cameras.

Content:

- I personally feel like there is a lot of emphasis on the types of cameras. There are 15 different examples underneath that section.

-The article does seem up to date though, or rather modern enough? The last update was in December 2019.

-I feel like talking about camera manufactures might be a good section that the article doesn't have yet like Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc.

-The content is very relevant to the article, it has the the history, the mechanics, examples of actual digital cameras, and a whole lot more that I expected to see even down to the types of batteries

Tone & Balance:

-I think the article for the most part does well with being very objective.

-However, even noted at the top, the article is very technical and very hard to understand on a basic level.

Sources and References:

The article requires a lot of citing especially in the "Types of Cameras" section

Organization:

-the article seems well organized

-no grammatical errors

Images and Media:

-I think more images especially for each example of digital cameras would be beneficial

-Captions are specific and well done

Talk Page Discussion:

-On the talk page there is a lot of editing of external links

-A few tips on articles to pull research and citing from

-Appointed sections that should be updated and are more than 5 years old in information at this point.