User:Maddywhit24/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article[edit]

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: MIT OpenCourseWare
I have chosen this article to evaluate for a few reasons. First, I picked philosophy of technology under the academic disciplines category, since the seminar I am currently in is on "framing your digital identity" I feel like choosing philosophy of technology would be a good choice. Then I picked digital humanities because that sounded interesting, then I picked digital humanities projects and finally I picked MIT OpenCourseWare because we actually used it in class and I thought it was very cool.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No it doesn't, you can only find those in the contents box.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes it does.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's a little too long.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes it is.
Is the content up-to-date? It was updated in 2018 so it's pretty up to date.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article is missing some content on some of the videos and articles on the MIT site.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No it doesn't.

Is the article neutral? Yes it is.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there are not.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No there are not.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it doesn't.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are a few pieces of information that need citations.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? A lot of the sources are missing.
Are the sources current? Yes most of them were retrieved from 2018.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes and Yes.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There's only one image.
Are images well-captioned? Yes.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There's only one but it's placed in a good spot.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is a lot of conversations on the talk page going on, but the main ones are about OpenCourseWare and using it's material in Wikipedia.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It's rated as mostly start-class and low importance, it's part of a few WikiProjects.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It really doesn't differ that much.

What is the article's overall status? The article's overall status is okay.
What are the article's strengths? It's short and to the point.
How can the article be improved? It needs to have all the citations in place.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is a little underdeveloped the information on there is quite small.

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 — ~~~~