Evaluate an article Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead section A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section. Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another. Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Is the content up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books. Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization and writing quality The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections. Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Talk page discussion The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Overall impressions What is the article's overall status? What are the article's strengths? How can the article be improved? How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of this article about a famous painting

I.T

I choose this article because in my impression, I.T is a famous fashion brand in China that I can almost see it in the mall of every cities I have been to. So I was kind of surprised about how little information available for it on its Wikipedia page and I hope to provide more content about it.

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

• Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - No, the articles started to introduce the company's history immediately without introduction.
• Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?-No, there's no description.
• Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)- No, the lead section here is more like an independent part that describe the company instead of the structure of the article.
• Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? - I think it is overly detailed that it started talking about the history of the company.

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?- Yes, they are. The content include the history, stores, brands owned by the company.
• Is the content up-to-date? No, it only includes the establishment date of the company in the history part, and the brands owned are not complete.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There are information missing that the brands list is not complete and the history of it should include more content about its recent development.
• 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.

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

• Is the article neutral? Yes, it is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I think there's only objective and basic information of the company.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, I don't think there's any "viewpoints" in this article. It only contains basic informations.
• Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No, there is no minority or fringe viewpoints mentioned.
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it only contains basic information about the company's history and brands included.

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, one of the sources only provides a link to stock market which is not about the I.T company. The other source is an annual report written by the people from the company themselves.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they reflect part of the literature on the topic but not all of them
• Are the sources current? No, they are from several years ago.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No, the annual report does not show author's name and the journal article is written by single author.
• Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) I think there are more and better sources when searching in Chines on Chinese search engines since clearly the company is founded in China and has more popularity in cities of China, so I think sources in Chinese would be more comprehensive and helpful.
• Check a few links. Do they work?

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article is short but easy to read.
• 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? No, the major section of this article only has three parts, the history, stores, and brands owned. More information and sections might be needed to introduce the company.

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, it has image of the logo if the company and a store in HonKong.
• Are images well-captioned? Yes.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No, some of the photos are someone's own works.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No, there should be better images and the current images seem to be random and badly organized.

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There's no conversation going on recently.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This is a Stubs article and belong to WikiProject Brands, Companies, and HongKong.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The Wikipedia only provides the basic information of the topic and does not discuss it from multiple aspects.

• What is the article's overall status? It is short and incomplete.
• What are the article's strengths? It's a weak one that only provides little information about the company.
• How can the article be improved? It should include more complete and recent history and development of the company. Besides, it should also mention the complete lists of store, and brands.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? -poorly developed.