User:The-mr.e-1/Evaluate an Article

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

I am evaluating the "Cybertext" article

Cybertext

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 found this article because the name stood out to me while reviewing the options in the digital humanities section. After reading through the presented content, I confirmed my choice because I liked the intresting concept the page presented and because it was about a fairly abstract subject that I found entertaining to think about. My preliminary impression of the Cybertext article is that, though appearing somewhat short, it cleanly covered and summarized the ideas discussed. The page was well organized and easy to navigate when attempting to read about a specific section.

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.)

To start, at first glance the article appears very clean, organized and well summarized, the content appears relevant and does not seem to have many subjects conveyed that is out of topic. Delving farther in, the lead section is fairly short, featuring a cited definition statement of what Cybertext is and not much else. Though I think the lead section could benefit from some additional clarification of the subject, keeping the lead section short, I think is a good design approach for this specific page.

The primary body of the article, I think is very well organized and presented, the first heading is the definition, followed by the application, followed by the background and ending with examples. This allows the reader to decide how deep they wish to dive on the complexity of the subject before ending with a few examples to help clarify any miss conception's. The wording to describe the content I think is also well presented. Though the subject itself is broad and fairly complicated, the descriptions provided are presented in a way that is easy to understand (the wording, analogies and definitions used are not overly complicated, especially for an article within the subject of technology). I think there is some minor unnecessary detail added in the history section, such as how the word cyborg was coined, however there does not appear to be any significant meaningless or unrelated content used in the article.

The tone of the page is very neutral, there does not appear to be a strong biased presented by the writers. With this said, there is a strong influence based on the writings of Espen Aarseth, which dominates almost every aspect of the page. This is not to say I think that the article is biased or untrustworthy, but to say, there is not a lot of different outside views reviewed for a topic as broad as Cybertex.

Most of the citations appear up to date and working, I had trouble accessing citation 6 for Queneau's Poems but the rest seemed to operate well. The sources I think are relevant, diverse and well utilized for the article. With this said, the work of Espen Aarseth is constantly used almost as the entire foundation for the page.

There is one image utilised at the start, (a person appearing to be scrolling through a phone), I do not personally think it adds a lot to the page, but also do not think it is distracting or hurting the page in anyway. I think a better image could be used, such as a screen shot of one of the example web pages.

There is, at the time of writing this evaluation, very limited discussion present in the talk menu. Analyzing what has been discussed, there appears to be a small, generally laid back group working on the page. They primarily propose and answer questions regarding the page, though there is not enough discussion significantly add comments about the community. The page is part of WikiProjects and is rated a Start-class of mid importance.

Overall I think the article is a very pleasant read, that features easy to understand descriptions and definitions of the concepts, applications, history and examples of Cybertext. The biggest things that I think can be improved is, the diversity of influences (even though there is strong diversity in the types of sources, there is one big source used throughout the entire page), more clarification in the lead section, a more representative photo, fixing or finding a new source for Queneau's Poems and ending the definition paragraph more cleanly (the definition paragraph ends with an additional sentence that reads strangely).