User:SmallChartreuseCat/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Library makerspace

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 this article because makerspaces are an important component of modern public library services, especially those that seek to center patrons. When learning about information literacy, as I am doing in this class, it is important to consider makerspaces as tools of learning and understand how they may have evolved over time.

This article provides a basic introduction to the concept of makerspaces. It is relatively short and there are clear areas where improvement is needed.

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 offers a short introduction to the concept of a library makerspace. The lead is only one paragraph that consists of two sentences. There is no overview offered of the subsequent sections. The lead section should be expanded. However, the opening sentence is a concise definition that would be useful to someone who wanted a cursory overview of the topic, and there is no information included that is not a part of the rest of the article.

ContentThere is room for expanding the content included in this article. The "history" section in particular needs more information. More sources should be consulted, and their information incorporated into the article. The "criticism" section is also quite short and could include more information. It notes an anticipated anxiety from 2010, and does not offer information to explain what has happened since then. The obvious sparseness of content included makes the article seem less authoritative. However, there is no irrelevant content, and there is content that addresses the ways in which library makerspaces are aimed at serving underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance

This article appears to have a neutral tone and does not take a stance on the topic or attempt to persuade the reader. However, there do seem to be different views missing. Particularly in the "criticism" section very little is said about differing views, and it is likely that there are views missing here. This does not seem intentional on the part of the article creator(s), and is more likely a result of not enough attention to the article.

Sources and References

There are sources used from a variety of different voices in the library makerspace field. It pulls from reliable journals and authors. However, almost all articles cited are at least 5-10 years old. This does not render them inaccurate or irrelevant, but the field has changed rapidly in the last few years, and there are more articles available now that would be relevant and should be included.

Organization and writing quality

The article is written in a way that is easy to understand. The order in which the sections appear make sense, with definition and history at the beginning and criticism at the end. There do not appear to be any grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and media

There are several images included that illustrate the points made in the article. They are well captioned. More images should be added as more text content is added. Each image links to its creative commons attribute.

Talk page discussion

This page is part of the WikiProject Libraries. It is rated "Start-Class". In the WikiProject Libraries discussion, it was proposed to be merged into Hackerspace. One user argued that Hackerspaces and makerspaces are not the same thing, that the former is a subset of the latter. There was debate, with some seeing the two terms as synonymous, and others seeing them as completely different and deserving of their own pages. The article is currently categorized under "Articles to be merged" in the WikiProject Libraries.

Overall impressions

Overall, this is a start-class article with a lot of room for improvement. It does well in that it cites good material and does not display bias, but there is information that needs to be added, especially from more recent sources. It is well organized for what it is. The language is clear. It would serve as a brief introduction to the topic, but more content is needed in order for it to be anywhere near comprehensive.