User:Templefrogs/sandbox

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Somewhat, could be improved to include more about the upcoming sections
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think there is more information to be added, particularly regarding the history and development of it. It's a lot about the technical side about the actual equipment, but could we add more about how it came to be and what it really does?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? This could be a potential article issue. There seem to be some paragraphs that could use more attribution, and some stray sentences without sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, but more could be included for a broader perspective
 * Are the sources current? Yes, but current information is always being updated!
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Definitely, the first source listed is a random blog, which needs to be replaced with something else and ensure the sources are scholarly.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I think some of the paragraphing could be edited to be more concise in a grammatical sense.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think the overall section layout needs a few tweaks, why is there an overview and then a technical overview section? I feel as though it could be moved around to make it easier to read.

Images and Media - NO IMAGES! ADD IMAGES!

 * 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?

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? A lot of the convos are really nitty gritty discussions of the mathematics and technicals of digital video, not a lot about the actual content or reliability of the article. Also, there isn't a lot on there and it's mostly from 2007-2010.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It's rated as start-class, part of the wiki media project.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We definitely talk about things from more of a historical and cultural perspective, which I want to add the article.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? It is incomplete and I don't entirely trust the information and sources.
 * What are the article's strengths? Mostly well organized, readable and understandable, has a good amount of content.
 * How can the article be improved? I think more perspectives, history, information, photos, and sources needed to be added.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Not necessarily poorly developed or underdeveloped, it feels like it is intermediary. It has a bulk of info, but it's not a well-developed and solid piece yet.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. I honestly think theres quite a few subsections and sections that could be completely deleted and/or have some of the ideas incorporated into other sections.