User:Wzy5092/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: (link) Artificial intelligence
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because it seems authoritative. It relates to the topic we discuss in class. It has proper citations from reliable resources.

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
The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It gives a definition of what is the Artificial Intelligence is.

The lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead contains a contents which shows the structure of the article.

The lead does not include information that is not present in the article. Every major and minor sections are mentioned in the article.

The lead is concise and not overly detailed. There are 6 paragraphs in the lead which seems long but not too much compares to the entire length of the article.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic. It discuss the AI from many different aspects.

The content is up-to-date.

The content does not miss anything and does not include anything is not belong to this article.

The articles does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. It does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

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

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral.

There are no heavily biased claims toward a particular position. It contains both cons and pros of AI.

There are no viewpoints are over-represented or underrepresented.

The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. It contains both cons and pros of AI.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All facts in the article are backed up a reliable secondary source of information.

The sources do reflect the available literature on the topic.

Some sources are current and only a small portion of sources are not current.

The sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors. They does include historically marginalized individuals where possible.

Yes, the links I checked are still working.

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 article is well-written. It is concise, clear and easy to read. It even is available in different languages.

The articles does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.

The article is well-organized. It break down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

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
The article includes images that enhance understanding of the topic.

The images are well-captioned.

All images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. They are all cited properly.

All images are laid out in a visually appealing way. They are on the right side of the article in a unify form.

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
There are no conversations in the talk page.

The article is rated as a good article. It is not a part of any WikiProjects.

There is no major and obvious difference between the topic we talked about in class and Wikipedia. Both of us discuss the cons and pros of AI.

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
The article's overall status is great.

The strengths of the article are well-organized, clear, well cited, reliable sources, etc.

I think the article does not need to be improved. Maybe shorten the lead a little bit.

The article is well-developed.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: