User:TheFourthEncounter/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: Intel C++ Compiler
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

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
This is an exceptional example of a good Lead. It introduces the topic clearly and concisely, without spoiling too much of the main details that the article is trying to convey.

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 content is relevant to the topic, and the references are still being updated to this date.

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 over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of this article is neutral. It provides a list of C++ compilers without favoring a particular compiler.

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
The links function properly, and the sources are very current. However, some of the sources are not up to date, as far back as 2011. Some of these sources will need to be updated.

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 spelling is well-written, organized into proper sections, and written without any grammatical errors.

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
There are no images in this particular article. There might not even be a need for a picture pertaining to a topic as C++ compilers.

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 conversations in the past were about adding more to the article, but today, it's mostly about polishing and refining what has already been written. The article is rated with a C, and with a Low Importance rating from a WikiProject who's goal is to improve C/C++ articles on Wikipedia. Despite this, the information presented in the article is still useful.

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
There could be more polishing and some more additions to the page, but overall, the article is very informative. It provides its information about many C++ compilers very well, and with some more revisions and improvements, could prove to be a higher grade article than it is now.

Revised by --TheFourthEncounter (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)