User:Yaep/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

I will be evaluating Virtual community.

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 this article because it relates to our everyday lives and focuses on the pros and cons of the virtual community, which most of us are doing. This matter because we use social networks everyday all day and connect with each other through the screen. This article pin points why virtual community can be a good and bad thing, and the health issues it has upon us and so much more. I think ithis article is going to be very exciting to work as I can say I am a part of the virtual community. It will be interesting to see and bring up everything else this article needs for it to fully work.

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.)

The lead describes what virtual community is, which can be touched upon and maybe explore the purpose of the article. The article does include a brief description of the major sections. The lead does to include information that is not presented in this article. The lead is very concise, but like I said I'd maybe want to change it. The article content is well relevant to the topic, but can be up to date with certain topics. There isn't content that doesn't belong that I can think of at the moment, but I know there is some more things that can be added. The article is neutral but are some viewpoints that are over presented. This article doesn't attempt to persuade the reader of any favored viewpoint, as they described both pros and cons. Some of these sources aren't current, which should be updated with new ones, although they are backed up with reliable sources. The article is written well and clear enough for me to understand. The images go perfectly with what they are saying and are appealing. The talk page says that some of the topics should be added wit more details from another source. The strengths of this article is probably it's points and where it could be improved is with more updated information and sources. It is somewhat developed okay but definitely needs improvement.