User:Sscheffler1/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Computer vision
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I choose this article because I am interested in computer science and machine learning. Computer vision involves using machine learning to automate image analysis.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The article has a clear and concise introductory sentence. It simply describes computer vision as being a field that focuses on how to make computers gain a higher-level of understanding from image processing. Information about the major sections are not all laid out in the lead. For instance one of the major sections deals with related fields, but these are not mentioned in the lead. Overall, the lead does a good job at letting the reader know what the topic and article are about, however, it could be more succinct. It uses a lot of scientific terminology and has information that is repeated in the definition section.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article's content includes fields that are related to computer vision, applications of computer visions, and computer visions tasks and methodologies. There are are relevant to the topic. The content overall is up to date, since it is mainly a broad overview of the subject.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is purely informative, it deals with the what computer vision is, fields that are related to it, applications of the technology etc. There are no clear viewpoints or biases in the article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Not all facts in the article are backed up. Some section do not include a source, such as the Signal processing and Other fields sections. A lot of the sources are over 10 years old, however, they do contain information that is still relevant to this day.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article seems to be have some repetition, for example the lead and definition section both repeat the line "Computer vision is an interdisciplinary field that deals with how computers can be made to gain high-level understanding from digital images or videos." The article is also highly technical, making it difficult to read for the average reader who does not have a lot of background in computer science. Some of the sections contain extra wordiness, for instance under "Related Fields" each subsection start with "another field ..," which is redundant. The overall organization is fine, each major point is broken into its own section.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The article contains some images in the Applications section. The images have captions detailing what the image is depicting, however, some of them are small and it is difficult to discern what the picture is showing without the caption. The images are small and not laid out in the most appealing way. The images do adhere to copyright regulations, they are either part of the Wikimedia Commons, public domain, or have a Creative Commons license that allow them to be copied and redistributed.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The article is part of the Computer Science, Computer Vision, Robotics, and Technology WikiProjects. The discussion about the article is highly critical. There is a conversation titled "Very Poorly Written Article," stating that the article is far too technical and sounds like it was written by computer engineers, making it difficult for laymen to read.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article is rated as a C-class article. Overall it does a good job of outlining what computer vision is, discussing related fields, and going over some of its real world applications. However, there is excessive wordiness in some areas and it uses a lot of technical terminology making it harder to read. The article could be improved by making it more succinct and using more layman's terms.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: