User:Ak1538/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: Authorship and ownership in copyright law in Canada
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It was one of the more substantial articles out of the list of options.

Lead
Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Not exactly. The intro sentence says that authorship and ownership in copyright law in Canada is complex and mentions some laws relevant to the issue.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not really. The exact phrases used in the introductory sentence are then reused as section headings later in the article but these phrases are not explained or elaborated on at all in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise, but largely uninformative.

Lead evaluation
The lead isn't really written to Wikipedia standards because it doesn't explain the topic, only mentions that it's important and complex. It does list some of the content that is expanded on later in the article.

Content
Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Unsure, since I don’t know enough about the subject matter to know if there are more recent cases that overturn what’s covered in the article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Some content that does not belong, such as uncited speculation about the effects of certain copyright laws or decisions and original research into the topic. There is also a long digression into the interrelationship between a particular economic law (Coase’s theorem) and its relevance to a subsection of the Canadian Copyright Act.

Content evaluation
The needed content to explain Canadian copyright law is, for the most part, there. However, some irrelevant content should be stripped. Also, almost all of the content is entirely uncited, making it difficult to use.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * More or less; the article appears to entirely be original research in the form of someone’s paper on the topic but it largely does not take a particular position, instead just going through the facts of the cases relevant to Canadian copyright law.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, though there are some original claims that are unsubstantiated.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes; the viewpoint of the editor comes through pretty clearly.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Yes, it’s written as a persuasive essay and the editor seems to share their opinions about the various decisions that make up Canadian copyright law.

Tone and balance evaluation
This is the major problem with this article; the tone is incorrect for a Wikipedia article because the article was written as a paper and not according to the guidelines for appropriate tone in an encyclopedia.

Sources and References
Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No. The only citations in the article are the cases directly mentioned in the article, one secondary source and the text of the Canadian Copyright Act.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, almost no secondary sources are cited.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Somewhat; the original text of the article was written 2011 and it references cases up to 2007.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
It only cites primary sources, with only 1 secondary source to be found! The sources for this article are very lacking and it appears to be original research on the part of the editor.

Organization
Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It could use improvement in writing style and conciseness but it is largely readable.
 * 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; it suffers from being written like a school paper, not a Wikipedia article. The sections are broken down based on the logical organization of the editor’s argument, not based on writing a coherent explanation of the major points of the topic to someone unfamiliar with it.

Organization evaluation
This is also a weakness of the article, though less bad than the lack of sources or the tone. The barebones of the organization currently present could be kept but the article would benefit from moving sections and concepts around for greater comprehensibility.

Images and Media
Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There is no media associated with the article; while discussing Canadian copyright law doesn't provide much opportunity for images, it could be possible to maybe link audio or outside media pertaining to cases mentioned.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * None
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is not rated or part of any Wikiprojects but it is listed as an article with multiple issues:  This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (January 2014)
 * This article has an unclear citation style. (December 2011)
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page has one comment, from the person responsible for the article, about changing "IP" in the title to "copyright" at the request of their professor. However, it does tell you that this article was completed as part of a school project partnering with Wikipedia in a University of Toronto class on patent and copyright law.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is not incomplete, but does not meet Wikipedia standards.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article does thoroughly cover the Canadian Copyright Act, its exceptions, and various cases related to the act or which flesh out other parts of intellectual property law in Canada.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Heavy rewriting to reorganize the information and strip the editor’s personal embellishments.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Poorly developed for a Wikipedia article because it is structured as an argumentative paper, explaining why each topic is important and attempting to guide the reader to particular conclusions rather than merely presenting cited facts. However, it contains useful information that could be kept if someone could find proper citations for the facts, so it is not significantly underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation

 * The original editor appears to have written the entire article at once as part of a student assignment. In the process, they have covered a significant amount of case law and provided a lot of information relating to the state of copyright law in Canada. However, very little of it is properly cited or cited at all, and the tone of the article is inappropriate for Wikipedia, meaning the page would require intensive reworking to meet Wikipedia guidelines.