Week 2
editFor our week 2 assignment I will be reviewing this article, Automatic content recognition, in the Information Technology section.
The article I chose to review was titled Automatic content recognition, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_content_recognition, which is a page dedicated to the explanation of how many popular “song identifying” applications find the music information just from you plating a clip of the song. The article has seven sub-headings; how it works, fingerprint & watermarking, history, application, ACR technology providers, see also, and finally references. It also seems that there is meant to be a “Evolution of Video Content Recognition” title however it is in plain paragraph format and has nothing under it. This is located under references for whatever reason.
The article seems to be somewhat concrete, however Wikipedia has flagged this article for two different reasons. The first being it relies too heavily on primary sources. It seems in referencing this information the author does not include any secondary sources to further confirm the facts, relying instead on the sources directly creating the information. Wikipedia has also flagged the article for using too many “buzzwords,” though I was unable to really find enough examples to show that this concern was justified. Something that did distract me was the section titled “See also” which had a singular link to a list of software relating to music. While I can see the train of thought behind including this I believe it is still unnecessary and distracting. The only section that I could see breaks the rule of staying neutral would be the “ACR technology providers” as I doubt this is a complete list as new companies emerge every day especially in the technology sector. This is only serving to give credit to a few and possibly direct clicks and business their way regardless of the author’s intention. Another huge problem is that many of the reference links do not work, resulting in a myriad of errors from the site does not exist to a 404 error.
While appearing to be a basic, solid article with tangible information this page needs work. Its references are few and outdated, many not available anymore. It has formatting errors and sections that do not relate to the content well enough to warrant a whole sub-heading for themselves. It also inadvertently promotes certain companies and breaks the message of neutrality that Wikipedia wants to push forward. Hopefully it can be corrected, although sadly from the talk and edit pages it seems this article has not been touched in a long time.
Week 3
editThe article has some obvious errors like a paragraph entrance on the very bottom that is meant for a heading, missing sources, and other minor issues. The see also section is erroneous to this specific article and should be removed.