User:AlliYaff/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: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is there anything that you think should be added to the topic?

1. Everything in the article is relevant to the topic of writeprint. The article describes what it is and outlines some of the aspects of the topic. The article is straightforward but it is a bit startling to see such a short Wikipedia entry; it's just not something I am used to. I think this Wikipedia page would be benefited by the addition of more information regarding the topic. For example, when it lists the five broad aspects to author identification in writeprint, the article could have then broken each of those down into more depth in separate sections.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

2. While I think this article is overall neutral I do see one potential issue. The article states "Even without a suspect, writeprint provides potential background characteristics of the author, such as nationality and education." I think the word "potential" is misplaced in this sentence. I think if it had said "writeprint potentially provides..." that would have a more neutral tone to it. As it is written, it seems that the idea that it provides something is a given even if what is given may not be background characteristics. The other way is unambiguous.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? Does the source support the claims in the article?

3. All three of the citations on this page work and there appears to be no close paraphrasing or plagiarism within this article. While all of the sources listed do support the claims made in the article, I do believe there is a slight issue with properly matching the claims with the sources that most directly support them. I will go more into depth with this in my answer to #4.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

4. I do NOT believe that each fact is referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. For example, the article states that writeprint can be "likened to a digital fingerprint", but the paragraph that this claim appears in is cited using a source that makes no mention of the term "digital fingerprint"; however, one of the other listed sources does contain such a term, in fact, it is the very title of it. Two of the three sources listed on the page come from JSTOR— a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources—one of which was originally published in the Journal of Management Systems, a highly ranked journal, and the other published in Science News, a relatively short lived science magazine. The third source comes from the ACM Digital Library and was published in ACM’s flagship magazine Communications of the ACM. All three of the listed sources come from decently reputable journals and magazines which were accessed using well-established databases. From my examination of the articles, all three appeared to be neutral and I could not detect any obvious bias (though perhaps there is bias present but I am unable to detect it due to my lack of knowledge in this field).

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

5. Going to the talk page of this article, I see that only one person, a student who formerly took this course, has made comments. In his or her comments he/she suggests that the article be lengthened and that additional sources be utilized in its formulation. He/she then goes on to list additional sources that could be used to expand the article. Because we have not exactly covered this topic in class, I cannot really answer how Wikipedia differs in discussing this topic.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: