User:UAguy9001/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
This evaluation is focusing on the AI boom page, a level-5 vital article currently of class C (as of 2/2/24).

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to look within the Category:C-Class Linguistics articles list hoping to find something relevant to my current class, and found one that was relevant to both the field of the class as well as the field of my personal study. It has a decent looking amount of information within the Talk page, but appears to have been created for another Wiki Education program and moved into its current position afterwards.

Because of this history as well as the rapidly evolving landscape of current AI integrations, it seems relevant for evaluation and review.

Lead Section
The lead is a concise summary with a clear introductory sentence and further elaboration in the following paragraphs, but does not serve to outline the structure of the following segments.

The lead section provides references to impacts of AI in its second paragraph that are not present or explained in the rest of the article, namely: philosophical and religious impact, as well as AI alignment and qualia.

Content
Everything within the article is relevant to the article topic, and the information within is largely up to date. There are multiple references retrieved in 2024 so it appears to be in the process of updating, though information about more recent events outside of ChatGPT is relatively slim.

The article could use more content on some of the topics mentioned within the lead, the cultural impact of recent AI use and likely more modern events such as scandals involving AI usage for writing of shows, artists whose work was used to train models, and AI integration into other products (GPT-based or in-house) or misattribution/advertising of AI Powered products using traditional computation methods.

I do not know enough about Wikipedia's equity gaps to make a strong statement about this article's role within them.

Tone and Balance
The article maintains a neutral tone throughout and cites a number of sources that appear to be from differing sides within the AI discussion. Most perspectives are described vaguely, i.e. "some" or "many" and few are called out as "mainstream" or "fringe," though the topic may not have been around long enough for proper sources/statistics to show what ideas are more popular among experts.

The viewpoint against AI use appears to be underrepresented compared to my current perspective of media and news, though many of the criticisms are related to recent events that the article may not be fully updated in the meantime.

Sources and References
The majority of sources used are news articles from various web sites and a smaller number of magazines, with a few academic papers cited. The sources are relatively thorough, but they likely do not reflect the entirety of available literature on the topic; further looking for academic papers available as sources on some topics or particularly literature reviews might prove helpful. Since the majority of sources are news stories from sources like The New York Times, The Verge, and TechCrunch they are not exactly a diverse set of authors, but the topic is niche enough that this may be about as good as there is for the current time, and the article makes use of a multitude of web resources instead of relying on a single viewpoint.

Recent scholarly work includes studies on public attitudes towards generative AI in Art, and may serve useful for updating the article.

I did not find any broken links in my time checking a decent number of different sources.

Organization and Writing Quality
The article is fairly well written, with only a small number of grammatical errors and logical organization between and within sections. Some sections appear to be much more thoroughly written than others, but the page as a whole is concise and understandable (to someone familiar with the topic, though).

Images and Media
The article includes a single collage of images that helps to enhance understanding of the topic, one image within of which is later used in a more clear example. The image is well captioned, and is set up in the correct location and visually appealing. I do not know enough about Wikipedia's copywrite regulations to make a statement on such.

I think one area for improvement in the article could be the inclusion of additional images, since the advancement of the field as a whole can be demonstrated in a comparison of early work to more recent image generation and future topics like artist's concerns can be elaborated with images such as "draw [thing] in style of [artist]" or cases like Magic the Gathering Card art that was thought to use AI generation.

Talk Page Discussion
The article is C-rated and "of interest" to a large number of WikiProjects, including Computing (CompSci), Linguistics (Applied Linguistics), Robotics, Systems, Transhumanism, and United States (Governement).

The majority of all discussion inside the "talk" page is around 2 definitions: whether to call it "spring" or "boom" and what year is really began, with no discussion of the content within beyond that.

Overall Impressions
From my perspective, this article is useful but (as likely for a niche topic related to current events) can use updating and additional information. The article serves well to outline and provide decent sources for many of the categories within its purview but is lacking in some topics mentioned and could use more information on many, to look into peer reviewed sources if possible and to include additional images, diagrams, or other useful media to aid the text in conveying its message.

The article is decently well developed, but could definitely benefit from either expanding to more broadly cover its sections or referencing other pages, where possible, to provide more detail about aspects it only briefly mentions. It also needs to include more information about recent events regarding AI, though it is possible that reputable sources for still ongoing impacts are hard to find as of yet.