User:Tuj40055/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Digital photography

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 to evaluate Digital Photography because I am interested in photography myself, have a background in both digital and film photography, and have more than just general knowledge about the subject. My impression of the Wiki article was that it is very short for a subject that could be very extensive and detailed. I noticed it has a 'multiple issues' flag and contains original research. It is also out of date, being that it hasn't been updated since 2015 whereas many advances in digital photography have been developed since then.

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.)

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?

Yes and No

·       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?

Concise, not overly detailed

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?

No, needs to be updated from 2015 to now

·       Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Yes, many facts need to be sourced

·       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 neutral?

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?

No

·       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?

no

·       Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Not all

·       Are the sources current?

Not all

·       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.)'''

yes

·       Check a few links. Do they work?

yes

Organization and writing quality

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

somewhat

·       Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

no

·       Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

yes

Images and Media

·       Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

yes

·       Are images well-captioned?

yes

·       Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

I believe so

·       Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Sort of (needs work)

Talk page discussion

·       What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

They are questioning the details in some facts, asking for advice about adding in paragraphs/certain topics, etc.

·       How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

Level 4 vital article, apart of WikiProject Media and WikiProject Photography / History

·

Overall impressions

·       What is the article's overall status?

Needs a lot of improvement

·       What are the article's strengths?

Good information, good sources, good general/unbiased ideas

·       How can the article be improved?

Needs to be updated, needs more subtopics, needs some facts to be checked, needs to include more recent information

·       How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

It is underdeveloped so far