User:Tuo98683/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The article I am evaluating today is "Digital video".

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this because it is in my area of interest and I would like to make a contribution to making this article better.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * The lead section is not vague, and it looks to be missing details on what it digital is versus analog so it should be reorganized
 * It does provide all the major sections as a part of the lead

Content


 * Sources also seem to be getting a little old for this topic, digital video changes rapidly and there is some content that can be added such as H.265 format
 * "Technical Properites" section is too concise and could use more detail on compressed vs. uncompressed video and add the effect of video quality for these
 * It seems as though every topic has been covered so the equity gap in this article is solid (pretty hard to under represent something in a topic which is so new and still developing)

Tone/Balance


 * This article is straightforward with no bias or persuasive points
 * There does seem to be a lot of talk about only Sony's attributions to digital video when there are other companies like Canon and Red who were a part of the ecosystem. Also, iPhone and other Android phones changed the standard for digital video on a smartphone
 * Though, the writer does not seem to persuade the reader that Sony is the best, only that they have done the most for digital video

Sources


 * The overviews are pretty strong, but could use external (and reliable) citations to make a stronger text
 * New sources can also be used to get newer information on digital video since it changes so rapidly
 * The current sources used are good with solid variety, they just need to be updated

Organization/Quality


 * Article is easy to read with no grammatical errors from what I checked
 * The organization is well done too considering all the topics relate back to the main focus

Images/Media


 * The images on this page are well done, but there should be some that capture more recent digital video equipment rather than only original equipment created when video began going digital
 * They are still used correctly and are well-captioned for the reader to understand what is going on in each picture

Talk Page


 * The talk page is not very long but there is a little discussion (it also seems that another Temple student once edited this article, pretty cool)
 * This article is rated at C-level
 * It seems as though the way Wiki talks about their articles is the same we talk in our class
 * We look for every angle to each argument we look at we try to find the middle-most ground to not have any bias

Overall Impressions

Overall, the article in its current state is fairly strong. It provides many details of the origins of digital media, compares it to its predecessor (analog), and has a very neutral perspective. Its strengths definitely lie in the content and its organization, but lacks in sources. Once the sources are updated and new digital video technology is added, it will be a much stronger article.I would not say this article will ever be well-developed as digital media evolves each day. Until digital video reaches its peak or another video type takes over, this article will never be fully developed.