User:Nectaros/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: (Augmented reality)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I have chosen this article because it was a C-class article and I hope to help improve this article.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It is adequate.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes
Is the content up-to-date?
- Yes
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- I think the Possible Applications section could be augmented.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- Does not seem to fulfill this based on quick perusal of sources and no mention of equity or inclusion in article.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Privacy concerns section could use more citations.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, there are a lot of conference papers on the topic.
Are the sources current?
- Yes, most are within last 4 years.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Unsure
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? With the table of contents, it is understandable.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There is at least one comma that could be added.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I would rename some sections.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Most do, at least one is irrelevant or adds nothing.
Are images well-captioned? Yes, succinct.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No, most are just hanging around sections.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- Some phrasing discussion of statements, little additions to research/citations
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- Start Class article
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- No

What is the article's overall status?
- Start class
What are the article's strengths?
- Beginning strong compilation of research topics in AR.
How can the article be improved?
- Adding more citations to Privacy concerns and expanding possible applications / past applications.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- It has a lot that can be added, it seems.

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 — ~~~~