User:Clarkmitch/sandbox

I chose to critique the Findability article. Findability basically means how easy it is to find a certain topic on a website or on the Internet. The article goes into findability on websites externally and internally, looks at the history of findability, and looks at how findability is measured. Not all the facts in the article have their own references. Some facts don’t have any footnote at all, but do not have the “citation needed” footnote with them. Everything in the article is relevant to findability. Nothing is really distracting at all, and all the information is on topic. Although the article doesn’t sway to one side and tends to keep things neutral, you can tell some of the details are opinionated. For example, “The popularization of the term "findability" for the Web is usually credited to Peter Morville” is a quote that is not cited to any source so the reader may be getting wrong information from the writer. The article, however, is not heavily biased into a specific direction (findability, itself, doesn’t seem like a divided topic) but is just minutely opinionated. Most of the sources seem to be from academic journals, but there are some sources that seem to be from popular websites. The writer also used sources that seem to be from a business website, so that may produce some bias. As well as the business websites, the writer also uses the Huffington Post as a source of information. The source they used was an opinion-based article for their “Blog” section of the Huffington Post website, so this may also produce some bias for this informative article. The writers of this article do paraphrase the articles cited well; with the ones I checked, there weren’t any close-paraphrasing or plagiarizing problems. All the statistics in the article come from the year 2014, so the article could be updated with more recent statistics. The facts that were taken from the website also were updated for the year 2016, so there’s no reason why the facts are out-of-date. I also don’t understand why the article has an “introduction” subtopic when the beginning acts like an introduction or summary for the entire article. I think the article itself has just a little bit of information. It’s a relatively short article with 17 sources cited. The article has five subtopics with just a small paragraph of information. Overall, I think this article has potential to be more detailed, and could definitely be expanded.

I chose to edit the external findability subtopic because I thought it could have more information about the struggles for small companies to be found on the Internet.