User talk:Shreyaapatel/Article evaluation

Civic Technology Article Evaluation

There is nothing irrelevant or distracting in this article. Most citation links have been updated including citation one except for citation seven which is an unavailable webpage. The article is neutral, unbiased, and organized. The continents are separated consistently making it easy to reference and sort through information. The sources referenced in the article are unbiased and reputable as most of them appear to be government and organization websites. The introductory definition could be more specific and expanded. The definition could include more relevant information including the brief past, relevancy, and future of civic technology rather than a textbook definition. Real-life examples (like how Snapchat and Facebook were briefly mentioned) would also help in this case to help further understand and connect the concept of technology for the reader. I like how the article first focuses on civic technology on a global and worldwide level before diving into certain continents. I feel all viewpoints in this article are represented especially between government-led and citizen-led initiatives. The information in this article is up to date. The article is well-written. but could be more concise in the very first definition section following the brief introduction. Overall status: The article is up-to date and organized. The articles' strengths include structure and maintained and unbiased source of information. It also covers all viewpoints. The article is well-developed. --Shreyaapatel (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)