User:MSIS student/Evaluate an Article
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose the article Organic Computers because it is directly related to my area of study, which deals with information science and emerging technologies. The topic intersects with computing, biology, and artificial intelligence, and I felt the current article was underdeveloped and lacking sufficient in-depth references. I wanted to examine it to see how it can be improved and made more useful for readers.
Evaluate the article
[edit]1. Lead Section
The lead refers to an organic computer but does not define it succinctly in straightforward terms. It lacks an overview of what the rest of the article is about. It's too incomplete and sounds like a stub. It doesn't have content that is not in the body, which is good—but there isn't much content in the first place.
Recommendation: Add a clear definition, overview of significant technologies (e.g., wetware, biocomputing), and an indication of current research status.
2. Content
The article is very short, nearly stub-like. It does not include significant sections such as: Historical background, Current academic research, Real-world applications, Ethical considerations or limitations. It does not currently address any Wikipedia equity gaps, but it could potentially include commentary on how organic computing could impact underrepresented groups (e.g., healthcare or access technology).
Suggestion: Add sourced theory, practice, and societal impact sections to expand the article.
3. Tone and Balance
The article is neutral, yet since there isn't much content, it does not have more than one view or more extensive technical debate.There are no evident biases, but no multiple views either. Suggestion: Incorporate academic controversy, alternative phrasing, and refutations of the feasibility of organic computing.
4. Sources and References
The article is using very few sources, and all of them are not academic or peer-reviewed journals. There are some specialized blog or news sources, and not scientific journal sources. No in-text references have been given to support some crucial statements. There are functional links, but sources are not ideal. Recommendation: Replace or augment scholarly references from computer science, bioinformatics, and neuroscience journals.
5. Organization and Writing Quality
The article lacks proper organization there is one or two short sections only. Writing is good but too concise. There are no severe grammar and spelling errors. Recommendation: Add sections like: Introduction, Theoretical Foundations, Recent Developments, Applications, Challenges.
6. Images and Media- There are no diagrams or images in the article. An illustration of how organic computing might work would be beneficial. No copyright problem since there are no images.
Recommendation: Insert a copyrighted photograph of a wetware system or neuron-based processor with descriptive labels.
7. Talk Page Discussion- The Talk page is inactive, with no ongoing discussion. The article has no active participation in any WikiProjects. It is currently graded as a Stub-class article, i.e., it's underdeveloped.
Suggestion: Join or tag WikiProject Computing or WikiProject Emerging Technologies to enhance and track the article.