User talk:Delidel08

I found an article about technology. There were a few good things that this wikipedia did good and some bad. For starters the website bolded there headings. Underneath the heading the creator acknowledged what the page was going to be discussing which was the use and knowledge of tools. Through out the reading the article adds hashtags and links about what things are. For instance, if you do not know what a tool is you can click the link to find out details about it. The article had contents listed. The contents identified what was suppose to be discussed through out the article and the order that it would occur.

As you scroll down the article other bolded headings occur followed the facts to support it. It seems as though a different list of technology is discussed. For example, definitions, history, and the philosophy of technology. When looking at the policies and guidelines the article included 5 pillars, a neutral point of view, and article titles.

Poorly done example
The article about Technoglogy did not necessarily meet all the policies and guidelines it should have. The artile did not have no original research. It mostly had facts and summaries from other sources. When reading an article people like to see biographies from people. This article did not include a biography at all. It went into the histroy of technology but did not have anybody speak on their experience with it. A mission statment was also not included in the article in one sentence the article briefly discussed what it would be about but that was it. the article lacked dates and numbers of when the information was recieved.

The article alos did not have much resources to have so many facts that were used. the article lacked to knowledge me about technology today and the future aspects of it. If i wanted to know the history it did a good job on that part but it didn't really give me anymore details besides just that. The pictures in the article were a little boring it did not add much excitement to the page as a reader. the article had more poor qualities than it did good.